1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C(MD)No.887 to 892 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1 & 1 of 2011 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.887 of 2011 Abiraham ... Revision Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by its, The Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W., C.I.D., Kanyakumari District, (Crime No.3 of 2001). ... Revision Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the documents pertaining to the order passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P.Nos.609, 608, 610, 606, 607, 611 of 2011 in C.C.Nos.15, 14, 16, 12, 13 & 17 of 2003, dated 14.07.2011, to set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce all the relevant documents as ordered by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1040 of 2009 dated 30.07.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) C O M M O N O R D E R The Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 14.07.2011 made in Cr.M.P.Nos.609, 608, 610, 606, 607, 611 of 2011 respectively in C.C.Nos.15, 14, 16, 12, 13, 17 of 2003 respectively, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. 3.The petitioner herein has been arrayed as A1 in the case, pending before the Court below. The Crl.M.P.Nos.609, 608, 610, 606, 607, 611 of 2011 were filed by the petitioner under Section 254 Cr.P.C. seeking an order for issuance of summons to defence witness to produce documents and deposed. It is seen from the averments of the petition that already on 25.11.2008 a petition under Section 91 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Cr.P.C. had been filed seeking an order directing the respondent to produce 14 documents, before the Court below. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was alleged by the Court below, however the respondent has not produced all the 14 documents as requested by the petitioner. 5.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that out of 14 documents, requested by the petitioner nine documents were furnished however five documents could not be furnished by the respondent. 6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only five documents are funished and nine documents are not yet furnished. 7. It is an admitted fact that the prosecution evidence has been closed and the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is a settled proposition of law and also principles of natural justice, the accused must be furnished all copies of the documents that are relied on by the prosecution. In the instant case, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner/accused are not documents marked by the prosecution. According to the learned Government Advocate, the prosecution is not relying on the said 14 documents, however certain available documents were furnished to the petitioner/accused and other documents could not be furnished by the respondent. On account of non-availability of documents such as magnanimous thoughts to that effect the respondent has filed a counter. 8. So far as the documents which are relied on marked by the prosecution, the petitioner/accused is entitled to get copies there on. However, un-marked documents are concerned it cannot construed as a matter of right to get copies. If it is so required, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the Right To Information Act and seek remedy for the purpose of marking the same as defence documents. In the aforesaid circumstances, merely because the Court below has passed an order erroneously, it cannot be a matter of right to the petitioner as the respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the said documents are not available by the respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to invoke the provision of Right to Information Act. 9.With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W., C.I.D., Kanyakumari District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, Advocate (SR.No.42314) Crl.R.C(MD)No.887 to 892 of 2011 01.12.2011 am NSV/27.12.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/