copy to accused

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 11 June 2009

If the defense Counsel would like to see those copies even though not required by the prosecution, yes it should be given to the other party in the interest of Justice and fair play.

Shree. ( Advocate.) 11 June 2009

Dear Dr,

Referring to State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 it is submitted that the accused has no right to obtain copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution. (h) Even if the prosecution was to bring on record any other document which it proposes to rely upon at a subsequent stage, it can only be done in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the CrPC. At that stage the accused will have full opportunity of knowing in advance what is proposed to be relied upon and can ask for access to those documents as well.

In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick AIR 1981 SCC 917 the Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and held that the said provision cannot take away the right of the accused to get copies of statement recorded of witnesses or documents obtained by the police during investigation. The question whether each and every document collected by the police during investigation should be furnished to the accused at the pre-charge stage or whether it was limited by Section 173 (5) (a) read with Section 207 (v) CrPC clearly did not arise for consideration there. Reference was then made to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lakshmi Brahman (1983) 2 SCC 3872 where the Supreme Court observed that the language of Section 207 CrPC was mandatory and the furnishing of copies by the Magistrate to the accused was not an administrative but a judicial function. In any event, the said judgment no where states that all documents collected by the prosecution at the stage of investigation should be provided to the accused at the pre-charge stage and that a denial thereof would constitute a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Pravin Kumar Lalchand v. State of Gujarat 1982 Cri. L.J. 763 turned on its own facts. There since the enlarged photographs had been examined by the expert for giving the opinion, it was held that the said document cannot be denied to the accused.

Shree. ( Advocate.) 11 June 2009

DEAR Dr.VNT sir,

Referring to State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 it is submitted that the accused has no right to obtain copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution. (h) Even if the prosecution was to bring on record any other document which it proposes to rely upon at a subsequent stage, it can only be done in accordance with the procedure contemplated in the CrPC. At that stage the accused will have full opportunity of knowing in advance what is proposed to be relied upon and can ask for access to those documents as well.

BUT, In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick AIR 1981 SCC 917 the Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and held that the said provision cannot take away the right of the accused to get copies of statement recorded of witnesses or documents obtained by the police during investigation. The question whether each and every document collected by the police during investigation should be furnished to the accused at the pre-charge stage or whether it was limited by Section 173 (5) (a) read with Section 207 (v) CrPC clearly did not arise for consideration there. Reference was then made to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lakshmi Brahman (1983) 2 SCC 3872 where the Supreme Court observed that the language of Section 207 CrPC was mandatory and the furnishing of copies by the Magistrate to the accused was not an administrative but a judicial function. In any event, the said judgment nowhere states that all documents collected by the prosecution at the stage of investigation should be provided to the accused at the pre-charge stage and that a denial thereof would constitute a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Pravin Kumar Lalchand v. State of Gujarat 1982 Cri. L.J. 763 turned on its own facts. There since the enlarged photographs had been examined by the

expert for giving the opinion, it was held that the said document cannot be denied to the accused.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 11 June 2009

Shree, Thank you so much for the citation.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 11 June 2009

Shree, Thank you so much for the citation.

K.C.Suresh (Advocate) 12 June 2009

Shree thanks

6 Replies

Leave a reply

Recent Topics

Related Threads

Popular Discussion

Browse by Category