Mahendran v. State Of T.N., Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, arrayed as A2, faces charges under sections 147, 148, 341, 307, and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C No. 4 of 2010. Prosecution evidence and questioning under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) have been completed, and the case was posted for defence evidence. At this stage, the petitioner filed an application under section 91 Cr.P.C seeking production of certain documents from the respondent police to aid his defence. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, dismissed this application. The petitioner challenged this dismissal by filing the present Criminal Original Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records of C.M.P No. 216 of 2015 and set aside the trial court’s order dated 16.10.2015.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application under section 91 Cr.P.C for production of documents claimed to be necessary for his defence.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to peruse the case diary and other documents maintained by the police and government hospital at this stage of the trial.

Whether the delay of nearly seven years in seeking certain documents affects the entitlement to production of those documents.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that he was wrongly implicated in the case.

The documents sought under section 91 Cr.P.C are necessary to establish his defence.

The trial court failed to consider the necessity of these documents for a fair defence.

Respondent's Arguments

The documents requested are not relevant or necessary for deciding the case.

The trial court correctly considered the matter and rightly dismissed the application.

The petitioner is not entitled to peruse the case diary; only the prosecution and court have such entitlement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
2008 Criminal Law Journal Vol.3 P.3300	Accused’s entitlement to peruse the case diary and limits thereof.	The court relied on this precedent to confirm that the accused is not entitled to peruse the case diary; only prosecution and court have this power, supporting dismissal of the petitioner's application.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

2008 Criminal Law Journal Vol.3 P.3300

Accused’s entitlement to peruse the case diary and limits thereof.

The court relied on this precedent to confirm that the accused is not entitled to peruse the case diary; only prosecution and court have this power, supporting dismissal of the petitioner's application.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the procedural posture of the case, noting that prosecution evidence and section 313 Cr.P.C questioning were complete, and the case was at the defence evidence stage. The petitioner’s application under section 91 Cr.P.C sought certain documents from the police and government hospital records. The court observed that the Accident Register copy had already been marked as evidence (Ex.A.7) and found the Mortuary Register irrelevant to the case. It also noted that certain documents (2 to 5) were preserved only for one year as per the Official Manual of Madras Police, but the petitioner sought them after nearly seven years, without demonstrating their relevance to his defence. The court reiterated that the case diary is not accessible to the accused, relying on the cited precedent. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the trial court had properly evaluated the necessity and relevancy of the documents and reached a correct decision. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the trial court’s order dismissing the petitioner’s application.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The Criminal Original Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed, thereby upholding the trial court’s order refusing to direct production of the requested documents. The case in S.C No. 4 of 2010 remains pending for defence evidence, and the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within one month from the receipt of this order. This decision directly affects the parties by maintaining the status quo regarding evidentiary access and does not establish any new precedent beyond affirming the trial court’s discretion in document production and access to case diaries.

Mahendran v. State Of T.N.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records in C.M.P No. 216 of 2015 in S.C No. 4 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem dated 16.10.2015 and set aside the same.

R. Mala, J.:— This petition has been filed to call for records in C.M.P No. 216 of 2015 in S.C No. 4 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem dated 16.10.2015 and set aside the same.

2. The petitioner, is arrayed as A2 for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 r/.w.34 of IPC. In this case, already prosecution evidence is over and questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C is also over. When the matter is posted for defence evidence, he has filed this application under section 91 Cr.P.C to send for documents from the respondent police and to produce the same. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem after hearing the same, dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the petitioner would submit that he was wrongly roped in the case and the documents mentioned in the petition is necessary to prove his defence and that factum has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed to send for the document for establishing his case and prayed for an order.

3. Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that these documents are not necessary for the case and that factum has been rightly considered by the trial Court and there is no reason for reviewing the same and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides and on perusal of typed set of papers, the petitioner is arrayed as A2 in S.C No. 4 of 2010 and is facing charges under sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 IPC. After framing of charges, prosecution evidence is over and after questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C, now this case is posted for defence evidence. At that time, he has come forward with this application to send for documents under section 91 of Cr.P.C The counter foil of the copy of Accident Register has already been marked as Ex.A.7 Furthermore, the Mortuary Register is not relevant to decide the case. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that those documents from the Government Hospital, Mettur is not relevant to decide the matter, since already the Accident Register Copy has been marked. In respect of the other documents, the case diary, the accused is not entitled peruse and only the prosecution and the Court are empowered to peruse the case diary. The trial Court relying upon the judgment reported in 2008 Criminal Law Journal Vol.3 P.3300 rightly rejected the claim. So, that finding is hereby confirmed. In respect of the other documents is concerned, it was held that the documents 2 to 5, as per the Official Manual of Madras Police the documents will be preserved only for one year. The occurrence took place on 19.6.2008 But this application has been filed on 25.08.2015, nearly after seven years. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not submitted how those documents are relevant to their defence before this Court. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court had considered all the aspects and has come to correct conclusion and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Since the case in S.C No. 4 of 2010 is pending for defence evidence, the trial Court, the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem is directed to dispose this case within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Crl.O.P No. 1729 of 2016,M.P No. 829 of 2016

Mahendran v. State Of T.N.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Mahendran v. State Of T.N.

Comments