All criminal courts must obtain endorsement of materials supplied to accused before trial: Kerala High Court

Rule 19(4) mandates every accused shall be supplied with details of witnesses examined during investigation and a list of documents as mentioned in Section 173, 207 and 208 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The court noted that it would prevent pleas against non-compliance with the rule, being raised so as to stall the trial after service of summons to the witnesses.

Case

Based on the high court’s single bench order, the trial in this case was kept in abeyance and because of this order, the trial was postponed.

According to the order passed by the enquiry commissioner and special judge, Thiruvananthapuram, it was also found that there was non-compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982.

After this, an order was passed directing the investigating officer to file a comprehensive list specifying the details of witnesses examined during the investigation, the documents collected and also the material objects collected.

In view of this order, the counsel for the accused sought permission to withdraw the petition.

The court, however, noted that its bench in another case had issued directions to all Criminal Courts in the District Judiciary to ensure compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982, before start of trial, by directing the Public Prosecutors to give a specific posting for the said compliance, and to start the trial only after ensuring compliance with the mandate of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982.

The court observed that the special judge had failed to comply with these directions.

“it is discernible that the learned Special Judge failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Akhil Sabu’s case (supra) in the strict sense and, accordingly, he was compelled to pass an order directing compliance of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, as extracted above, only after the accused complained of non-compliance with Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982,” the court said.

The court held that criminal courts are not only to be directed to comply with the directions in the case given above, but also to issue another direction ensuring compliance with Rule 19(4) of the CRP, 1982 before scheduling a case for examination of witnesses.