Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order of the Trial Court wherein the court did not allow access to crucial documents in the Chief Secretary Assault Case.

Brief facts of the case

The Petitioner filed an Application under Section 207 of CrPC to supply certain deficient documents, including the copy of the statement of one witness V. K. Jain recorded. The Trial Court declined to supply a copy of the witness’s statement and held, as per the prosecution, no statement under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded, and therefore, the same could not be supplied. A Revision Petition was accordingly filed before the Trial Court, but it was disposed of stating that as it was a record of oral examination by the IO and was noted in the case diary, it could not constitute a statement under Section 161 and therefore, could not be given to the accused.

Arguments Before the Court

Senior Advocate, on behalf of the Petitioners, submitted to the Court that impugned order categorically stated that VK Jain had been examined in-depth and that the statement was being withheld because it did not suit the prosecution case. It was also submitted that there is an obligation on the Magistrate to see that all the documents necessary for the accused are furnished to him before the trial.
On behalf of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, Senior Advocate submitted that on 21st February, despite VK Jain being called for examination, no statement under Section 161 had been recorded. Further, statements mentioning 21st September were, in fact, referring to 22nd and the 21st was a typing error. It was also argued that “under Section 173(5) and (6) and Section 207, what is to be supplied to an accused are the specified documents and no more. It was also submitted that records of the Case Diary could not be sought due to the ban imposed by Section 172(3).

Court’s Decision

The court observed and considered the question does the statement of VK Jain recorded on 21.02.2018 amounted to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. It was noted that the Case Diary stated that the witness had been examined in-depth and that a report had been prepared. Court then referred to Section 161 of the CrPC, case of Ashutosh Verma v. CBI (2014), and observed that even at the stage of scrutiny of documents under Section 207, the court should supply all the documents to the accused. It was observed that the issue of the source of the document and states that if the evidence is relevant, it is admissible irrespective of how it is obtained. The court set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court.

The judgment can be accessed here.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -