THOTA RAMALINGESWARA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kov-vur refusing to receive certain documents sought to be filed by the prosecution, the copies of which were not furnished to the accused before the commencement of the enquiry. The accused is an Executive Officer of Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Gokavaram and he was charged with an offence under Section 409, Penal Code, in relation to som6 amounts collected from the tenants of the temple.

(2.) In my opinion, this reference does not merit acceptance. The provisions of the Section 173 (4) are introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 1955). Before such amendment most of the documents referred to therein could only be furnished to the accused on application and on payment of the nedessary costs and copies of the statements under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code could t# grant, ed only on application when the witnesses- wtt put in the witness-box.

(3.) It is indisputable that the statutory right of the accused to be furnished with copies of all the documents on which the case of the prosecution rests and the proof of his guilt depends is a most valuable right. The denial of the same or omission to supply copies of any of these documents Will certainly prejudice his case Inasmuch as he will not be able to effectively meet all the circumstances that are sought to be brought against him. Such a procedural provision is vital to his cause.