RABINDRA NATH NAYAK AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Pattanayak, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. P. Sahu, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing in this case.

(2.) RELYING on a decision reported in K. Achuta Rao v. State of Orissa, it is submitted that non -supply of police papers under Section 173, Cr. P.C. amounts to harassment to the accused persons. In case the non -supply of police papers is deliberate or on account of negligent act the same may amount to harassment, but mere non -supply will not amount to harassment There cannot be any universal rule that the non -supply by itself will amount to harassment to the accused persons. The reported decision is accordingly, distinguishable.

(3.) MR . Pattanayak further submitted that for expeditious disposal of the criminal proceeding accused persons shall apply for certified copies of those police papers which are to be supplied to them free of cost under Section 173, Cr. P.C. If application as submitted is made, the certified copies be supplied at the cost of the petitioners and no further free copy need be supplied. In case application is made for certified copies, the same would be an added ground for allowing representation of the accused persons till the copies are made ready for being supplied.