MANOJ G. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C.83/2011 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Kottayam. He has been facing trial along with another person on the allegation of misappropriation from funds, punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the P.C.Act'), 1988. When the case came up for final hearing after the conclusion of evidence, the learned Additional Legal Advisor to the VACB filed an application for permission to produce a document, and also to examine a witness to prove the said document. It is said to be a letter written by the petitioner to the Chief Minister of Kerala, allegedly containing some admissions amounting to confession. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge allowed the application by order dtd. 11/7/2018. The said order is under challenge, and it is sought to be set aside under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Of course, it is true that the court will have ample powers to examine anybody at any stage of the trial, or to summon any document at any stage of the trial, provided, it is absolutely necessary for the just decision of the case. When a document is sought to be produced at the fag end of the trial, the court must necessarily examine, whether it would be to the surprise and prejudice of the accused, or whether the said document was available to the prosecution for production at the right stage. The application filed by the learned Legal Advisor shows that the copy of the said letter was very much there in the case diary. This means that this document is not something that came to the notice of the prosecution at the end of the trial, and that at the very beginning of the investigation itself the Investigating Officer was well aware of the document, but he did not take care to seize the said document, or produce it in court. The prosecution cannot be allowed to produce any document at the fag end of a trial when the court finds that such document was very much available at the right stage for production, or the Investigating Officer or the Prosecuting Agency was very well aware of such document in the custody of somebody. What is sought to be adduced as additional evidence in this case is not simply a document. It is said to be a document containing some admissions amounting to confession. If at all it is summoned, the confession will have to be proved by the person, to whom the confession was made. Any way, I find that the VACB does not have any excuse or justification for the belated application made at the fag end of the trial as an attempt to prove a confession to the prejudice of the accused. I find that the application was wrongly allowed by the trial court. The prosecution has no explanation why necessary steps were not taken at the right stage to seize such a document, or produce the document in court. The prosecution cannot be allowed to produce materials or additional evidence to the surprise of the accused, and to the prejudice of the accused.

(3.) In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court on 11/7/2018 in C.M.P.684/2018 will stand set aside under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.