9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pies 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution or under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been urged that the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules 1985 have to be read harmoniously with the statutory provisions and if there be any conflict, the statutory provision shall prevail. Mr. Dastoor submitted that the Criminal Rules and Orders are meant to supplement the statutory provisions of law and are not to be read as in conflict with the law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the complainant files a firisti of documents or not, the Court is obliged to take all such evidence as may be produced by the complainant and no rule of procedure can infringe such liberty except that of relevancy and admissibility. It has been canvassed that there is no legal obligation upon the petitioner to supply copies of documents to the accused who can apply for certified copies of the documents after they are admitted in evidence. To buttress his argument Mr. Dastoor placed reliance upon the following decisions: 1. AIR 1970 Supreme Court 962 (The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and another Versus L. R. Melwani and another) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence has been provided in section 294 of the CrPC the object of which is to facilitate the process of cross- examination and expedite the trial. Mr. Mukherjee urged that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present case which is instituted on a complaint by a private individual whereas the citations referred relate to complaint filed under various Acts by authorised officers of the concerned departments of the government. The crucial point for determination is whether accused is entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint. 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 com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies of documents as a matter of fair play and natural justice is not supported by any precedent or authority. In this context it is significant to refer to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Col J.N. Sinha and another reported in 1970(2) Supreme Court Cases 458 which is as follows: It is true that if a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the courts should do so because it must be presumed that the Legislatures and statutory authorities intend to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. But if on the other hand a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the principles of natural justice then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the Legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice. The ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Melwani's case (supra) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
