2018 (1) TMI 1700 - HC - Indian Laws

Legal obligation to supply copies of documents to the accused - whether accused is entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Criminal Procedure Code makes a clear distinction between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted otherwise than on police report in the matter of supply of copies of documents relied upon by prosecution. In respect of a case instituted on a police report special provisions were made in Section 173(4) and Section 251A(1) for furnishing copies of documents to the accused by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1955 but no such corresponding provision was made in cases instituted on a private complaint by virtue of which it can be said that the complainant is bound either by an express provision of law or by necessary implication to furnish to the accused copies of documents produced by him along with the complaint or relied upon in support thereof - It cannot be said that non supply of copies of documents to the accused at the pre- charge stage will be prejudicial to his interest since it is open to the accused to look into the documents and cross-examine the witnesses before charge if necessary. The ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Melwani's case 1968 (10) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT appears to be that the legislature has consciously provided two distinct procedures for trial of two different categories of cases depending upon their origination on the police report or otherwise. The procedure which is prescribed for cases originating on a police report and more particularly the provision of Section 173(4) of the Code cannot be introduced or extended to the trial of the other category of cases which are instituted on a private complaint - It is legally impermissible to extend the provisions of Section 173(4) Cr.P.C. to a case instituted on a private complaint. Mr. Mukherjee could not refer to any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any authority by virtue of which the accused would be entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage in a case instituted on a private complaint. Evidently the provisions of Section 294 are not apposite for the issue in hand - the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Determining whether the accused is entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the accused in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint is entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage. The petitioner argued that the statutory provision under section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) mandates the court to take all evidence produced by the complainant, and no rule can infringe upon this liberty. The petitioner contended that there is no legal obligation to supply copies of documents to the accused before they are admitted in evidence, as the accused can apply for certified copies post-admission. The petitioner supported their argument by citing various legal decisions to emphasize that rules should not conflict with statutory provisions.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that providing copies of documents to the accused is essential for fair trial and natural justice. They contended that Rule 154 of The Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 mandates the filing of documents with a list to facilitate the trial process. The respondent highlighted the importance of enabling the accused to effectively cross-examine witnesses by having access to the documents beforehand. They argued that trial delays could occur if the accused had to apply for certified copies post-exhibition of documents.

The judgment analyzed the provisions of the CrPC concerning cases instituted on a police report versus those instituted on a private complaint. It distinguished the procedures for furnishing copies of documents to the accused in these two categories of cases. The court emphasized that the absence of a specific provision in cases instituted on private complaints implies a legislative intention to not mandate the supply of copies to the accused. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support the view that parties cannot demand copies from the other side unless the law enables them to do so. It concluded that the accused in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint is not entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage based on the statutory framework and principles of natural justice.

In the final ruling, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the order directing the complainant to supply copies of documents to the accused. The court emphasized the need to proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with the law. The judgment clarified the legal position regarding the entitlement of the accused to copies of documents in warrant cases instituted on private complaints, highlighting the distinction between cases initiated on police reports and private complaints.