Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT ALLOWED TO PRODUCE DURING TRIAL IN NDPS CASE – KERALA HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a recent judgment , the Kerala High Court, presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, ruled in favor of allowing the production of an additional document in a narcotics drugs case. The judgment pertains to a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 3922 of 2023) involving the second accused, Sundaran.

Sundaran, who is facing charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, had challenged the order of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, which permitted the prosecution to produce and mark a photocopy of a document related to the search conducted at the premises.

The prosecution, represented by the State of Kerala and the Sub Inspector of Police, Ollur Police Station, sought permission to introduce the document, which disclosed that the accused had been informed of his right to have a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer present during the search. However, the document was not initially included with the final report, leading to the prosecution's application under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting permission to present a true photocopy of the document as the original had been lost.

The petitioner, through his counsel, objected to the introduction of the document, alleging that it was fabricated and introduced to strengthen the prosecution's case. However, the Sessions Judge rejected the objection, stating that the genuineness of the document could be examined during the trial.

The High Court, while considering the matter, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and another [2002 (5) SCC 82], which clarified that there is no specific prohibition on producing additional documents at a subsequent stage. It further emphasized that if a mistake was made by the investigating officer in not producing a relevant document initially, it could be presented later with the court's permission. The High Court upheld the Sessions Judge's decision, allowing the document to be received on file, subject to the petitioner's objection.

The judgment also addressed the practice of deciding objections during the evidence stage, highlighting the need to modify the archaic practice and adopt a procedure whereby objections are tentatively marked and decided at the last stage in the final judgment. This approach aims to prevent prolonged trials and ensure the steady progress of trial proceedings.

DATE OF DECISION: 24th May 2023

SUNDARAN vs STATE OF KERALA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News