Holding

The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of formal adoption of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, an accused cannot invoke them to delay appellate proceedings, and such attempts constitute impermissible dilatory tactics.

Summary

The appellant P. Ponnusamy and eight co‑accused were convicted by a Sessions Court for offences under s.120B, 109, 341, 302 read with s.34 IPC, with some sentenced to death and others to life imprisonment. The Sessions Court referred the death‑penalty confirmations to the Madras High Court, which repeatedly adjourned the matter despite assurances from counsel that no further adjournments would be sought. While the High Court was preparing to hear the reference, the appellant filed a letter to the investigating officer demanding production of certain documents, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and subsequently approached the Supreme Court to stay the hearing. The Supreme Court held that the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2020/2021, which prescribe a right to disclosure of documents, have not been adopted by any High Court or State Government and therefore cannot be invoked at the appellate stage; the appellant’s attempt to delay the hearing was deemed dilatory and reprehensible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that death‑reference cases must be heard expeditiously and that the right to fair trial does not permit tactical postponements at the appellate level.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2020/2021 to requests for document production at the appellate stage.
Whether the appellant’s letter demanding documents and subsequent petition to the Supreme Court constitute a legitimate exercise of the right to a fair trial or a dilatory tactic.
The obligation of High Courts and State Governments to adopt the Draft Rules and the effect of their non‑adoption on the accused’s rights.
The appropriate procedure for handling death‑penalty reference cases under the CrPC, including the time‑frame for completion.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 207, s. 208, s. 386, s. 391, s. 91
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120B, s. 302, s. 34, s. 341

Subjects

death penaltycriminal trial delaydraft rules of criminal practiceright to fair trialdisclosure of documentsappellate proceduredilatory tacticsCriminal Procedure Code

Judgment

[2022] 15 S.C.R. 265 265

P. PONNUSAMY A
v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1926 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 07, 2022 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 120B, 109, 341, 302 & 34 – Draft
Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020 – Right of accused to demand
documents – Appellant along with other eight accused were C
convicted and sentenced by Sessions Court for the offences
punishable u/s 120B, 109, 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC – Some of
them were sentenced to death penalty and some with life
imprisonment – The Sessions Court had referred its judgment to the
High Court for confirmation of the death penalty – Adjournments D
were sought several times by the parties – During the course of
hearing before the High Court, appellant address a letter to
Inspector, asking him to produce certain documents, which were
required for fair adjudication of their case in the light of the Supreme
Court’s decision Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – In
the meanwhile, the appellant approached Supreme Court – Held: E
(Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) The death Reference cases referred by the
Sessions Courts to the High Court have to be given utmost priority
and should be heard and completed by the High Court as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months – ‘Draft
Rules of Criminal Practice 2020’ were the draft guidelines were F
given by Supreme Court to all the High Courts and the State
Governments and Union of India – However, neither the High Courts
nor the State Governments appear to have taken any steps pursuant
to the said directions – As a result thereof, the said Draft Rules
have neither been adopted by the respective High Courts/State
Governments nor have come into force – Unless they have been G
adopted, the same could not have been pressed into service by any
party to a criminal proceeding – The attempt made on behalf of the
appellant- accused and the other accused to delay the hearing,
under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from
the Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible – (Per
H
265
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A S.Ravindra Bhat J. (for Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and himself)) : The
Draft Rules framed, therefore, were a product of a thorough
consultative exercise undertaken to remedy asymmetries caused by
the lack of uniformity in Rules across States, which could hamper
appreciation of evidence, and in turn delay proceedings, especially
at the appellate stage – Some High Courts or governments of the
B
States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with Supreme Court’s
order and are delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the
concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of
an accused to receive the list of the statements – To say that the
judgment in Manoj in relation to this, and the right of the accused to
C receive the list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after
the Draft Rules are adopted would lead to an anomalous situation
where the right of the accused in one State, prejudicially differs
from that afforded to an accused, in another.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D HELD: 1. Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.: Despite such assurance
having been given by the senior advocate and all other advocates
including other senior advocates appearing for the other
appellants-accused to the High Court to proceed with the hearing
of the Reference case and the appeals, the appellant rushed to
E this Court to hamper the hearing fixed before the High Court on
17.10.2022. Such a dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and
their advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice in
the cases like the present one, where some of the appellant-
accused are facing the death penalty and some sentence of life
imprisonment are strongly deprecated. It is needless to say that
F the death Reference cases referred by the Sessions Courts to
the High Court have to be given utmost priority and should be
heard and completed by the High Court as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within six months. However, as transpiring
from the observations made by the High Court in the impugned
G order, which have remained unchallenged before us, it was only
because of the non-cooperation on behalf of the counsels
appearing for the appellant-accused, the High Court was not able
to hear the Reference case. The court may not have to remind
the senior advocates of their duties to assist the courts for the

H
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 267

cause of justice, and not to indulge into dilatory tactics and hamper A
the cause of justice. [Para 6][274-A-E]
2. It clearly emerges that this Court in the suo moto
proceedings had directed all the High Courts to take expeditious
steps to incorporate the said Draft Rules as part of the Rules
governing criminal trials and to ensure that the existing rules, B
notifications, orders and practice are suitably modified and
promulgated, wherever necessary through the official gazette
within six months from the date of the said order. The court had
also directed the State Governments as well as the Union of India
to carry out consequential amendments to the police and other
manuals. However, neither the High Courts nor the State C
Governments appear to have taken any steps pursuant to the
said directions. As a result thereof, the said Draft Rules have
neither been adopted by the respective High Courts/State
Governments nor have come into force. Unless and until the Draft
Rules as suggested by the court in the suo moto proceedings are D
incorporated by the High Courts in the Rules governing criminal
trials and unless the consequential amendments are made by the
State Governments and the Union of India in the Police and other
Manuals, the same could not have been pressed into service by
any party to a criminal proceeding. The observations made in
para 179 of the judgement in case of Manoj and others Vs. State of E
Madhya Pradesh were in the context of the said directions given
by the court in the suo moto proceedings and therefore were
required to be read in conjunction with the earlier paras 177 and
178 of the said judgement. Meaning thereby, the prosecution is
expected to comply with the Draft Rule no. 4 pertaining to the F
supply of documents, as and when the said set of Draft Rules are
adopted by the High Courts and State Governments, giving them
a statutory force. May it be noted that in any case, the Draft Rule
no. 4 with regard to the supply of documents under Sections 173,
207 and 208 Cr.P.C. is part of the Chapter I of the said Draft
Rules, to be followed during the course of investigation and before G
the commencement of the trial. The said Draft Rule no.4 as and
when brought into force after following the due process of law
could be pressed into service by the accused only during the
course of investigation and during the course of trial, and not at
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A the appellate stage before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
In the aforesaid premises, the attempt made on behalf of the
appellant- accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of
the appeals and the death Reference case pending before the
High Court, under the guise that they had demanded certain
documents from the Investigating Officer was absolutely
B
reprehensible. [Paras 10-12][277-D-H; 278-A-E]
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Judgment
dated 20.05.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of
2015; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 677; In re. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 598 – relied
C on.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 10 SCC 598 relied on Para 9
Per S. Ravindra Bhat, J. [for U. U. Lalit, CJI and himself]
D
1. The Draft Rules framed, therefore, were a product of a
thorough consultative exercise undertaken to remedy
asymmetries caused by the lack of uniformity in Rules across
States, which could hamper appreciation of evidence, and in turn
delay proceedings, especially at the appellate stage. Recognition
E of the need to streamline trials or mitigate delays, however,
cannot come at the cost of the accused’s right to fair trial. The
framework that emerges (by reading Section 173, 207, 208 and
Draft Rule 4) is that based on the list of statements, documents,
etc. received at the commencement of the trial, the accused can
F seek appropriate orders under Section 91 of the CrPC, wherein
the magistrate on application of judicial mind, may decide on
whether it ought to be called for. Additionally, by virtue of Section
391 of the CrPC, the appellate court, if it deems necessary, may
take further evidence (or direct it be taken by a magistrate or
court of sessions) upon recording reasoning. This safeguards the
G right of the accused in a situation where concern has been raised
regarding evidence or material in possession of the prosecution,
that had not been furnished, but was material to the trial and
disposal of the case. [Paras 10 & 14][282-A-B; 284-D-F]

H
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 269

2. That some High Courts or governments of the States/ A
Union Territories have failed to comply with this court’s order
and are delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the
concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of
an accused (to receive this list of the statements, documents,
material, etc. in the possession of the prosecution), which has
B
unequivocally been recognized by this court in its final order of
the suo-moto proceedings (paragraph 11, extracted above), itself.
Further, to say that the judgment in Manoj in relation to this, and
the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents,
material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted –
would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the C
accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an
accused, in another. In these circumstances, the proper and
suitable interpretation of the disclosure requirement in Manoj
would be that:
(a) It applies at the trial stage, after the charges are D
framed.
(b) The court is required to give one opportunity of
disclosure, and the accused may choose to avail of
the facility at that stage.
(c) In case documents are sought, the trial court should E
exercise its discretion, having regard to the rule of
relevance in the context of the accused’s right of
defence. If the document or material is relevant and
does not merely have remote bearing to the defence,
its production may be directed. This opportunity F
cannot be sought repeatedly – the trial court can
decline to issue orders, if it feels that the attempt is
to delay.
(d) At the appellate stage, the rights of the accused are
to be worked out within the parameters of Section G
391 CrPC.
That the accused, has a right to fair trial, was not in doubt;
but what is reiterated is that this right is manifested in the fair
disclosure requirement elaborated above. While the concern of
delay in conclusion of trial undoubtedly weighs heavily in the mind H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A of the judge, it cannot entail compromise of the right of the accused
to fair investigation and trial. [Paras 16-18][285-B-G; 286-A-C]
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Judgment
dated 20.05.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of
2015; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 677; In re. v. State of
B Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 598 – relied
on.
Siddharth Vasisht @ Manu Sharma v. State of NCT Delhi
(2010) 6 SCC 1 : [2010] 4 SCR 103; Manjeet Singh
Khera v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 9 SCC 276 :
C [2013] 8 SCR 511; P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala
(2020) 9 SCC 161 : [2019] 17 SCR 422; V.K. Sasikala
v. State (2012) 9 SCC 771 : [2012] 10 SCR 641 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
D
[2010] 4 SCR 103 referred to Para 11
[2013] 8 SCR 511 referred to Para 12
[2019] 17 SCR 422 referred to Para 12
E
[2012] 10 SCR 641 referred to Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1926 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2022 of the High Court
F of Judicature at Madras in R.T. No.2 of 2021.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Yug Mohit Chaudhury, Prabu
Ramasubramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Karupusamy Pandian,
Bharathimohan M., Ms. Priya R., Alagu Raja Bharathi B., Avinash, Ms.
Vartika, Shriram, Siddharth Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
G
V. Giri, N. R. Elango, Sr. Advs., Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Nupur
Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi,
Ms. Ankita Gupta, Vivek Singh, S. Agilesh Kumar, Antariksh Singh,
Purnendu Bajpai, Eish Sharan, Anupam Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.
H
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 271

The Judgments* of the Court were delivered by A
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) The appellant (original accused no. 1) has filed the present
appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed B
by the High Court of Judicature at Madrasin RT No. 02 of 2021, whereby
the High Court had directed the learned Counsels appearing for the
parties to proceed with the hearing of the matter on 17.10.2022. The
relevant part of the impugned order reads as under: -
“17. In our opinion, this communication is not at all appreciable
C
and we strongly record our disapproval on such tactics adopted
by the learned counsel on record. All the papers relied upon by
the prosecution were placed by the Investigating Officer before
the trial court and copies were furnished to the accused under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. The same have got translated as legal evidence
during trial and the case of the accused should have to stand or D
fall based on that unless additional evidence is sought to be taken.
18. Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Counsel requested
fervently that she has discussed with all the counsel including the
Senior Counsel, who have been engaged by various counsel on
record and sought final adjournment to 17.10.2022, on which date,
all the counsel assured that they would not seek any adjournment. E

19. This Court explain to the learned counsel that the case of the
persons, who have been sentenced to death, has to be completed
within six months, whereas, in this case, for the last one year,
there has not been any progress on account of non-cooperation
of the accused. Under Section 386 Cr.P.C., if the counsel for the F
appellant or the Public Prosecutor does not appear, it is open to
this Court to peruse the records and proceed with the case. When
we explained to Mrs. Anjana Prakash that the Public Prosecutor
may be permitted to begin the case at least and that she may
reply to his submissions later, she requested us not to do that, as it
would be easier if both sides’ submissions are heard continuously. G
She repeatedly assured us that no one would seek adjournment
on 17.10.2022. Hence, more out of courtesy and respect for Mrs.
*Ed. Note : There were two judgments in the matter- one judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi; and the other judgment rendered by Hon’ble
Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat for himself and on behalf of Shri Uday Umesh Lalit,
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate, the case is adjourned to
17.10.2022.”
3) The appellant instead of appearing before the High Court on
17.10.2022, rushed to this Court challenging the said order. This Court
on 17.10.2022 passed the following order:-
B
“Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate
submitsthat:
a) This Court in its decision dated 22.05.2022 passed in Manoj &
Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2022 (9) SCALE
C 67, dealt with certainissues from paragraph 170 of the decision
whereafter conclusions were drawn in paragraph 179.
b) Relying on these observations, a letter was writtenon behalf of
the accused on 05.09.2022 seekingdocuments which were in the
possession of theinvestigating machinery.
D
c) Without deciding the issues raised in said letter,the High Court
has proceeded to fix the matter forhearing in death confirmation
case.
We issue notice on this petition, returnable on 20.10.2022and direct
E that the matter be placed before the same Bench which dealt
with and rendered the decision in Manoj & Others (supra).
Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
Liberty is granted to serve the learned Standing Counsel forthe
F State.
Since the matter is posted before the High Court for final disposal,
at this stage, we do not deem it appropriate to pass any interim
directions except to request the High Court not to pronounce the
final order in case the matter is taken up for final disposal.”
G 4) In the present Appeal, we need not go deep into the merits of
the Appeals or the Reference case, which are pending before the High
Court. Suffice it to say that the appellant along with other eight accused
were convicted and sentenced by the City Civil and Sessions Court,
Chennai in Sessions Case No. 348/2015 for the offences punishable
H under Section 120-B, 109, 341, 302 read with section 34 of IPC. Some
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 273
[BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

of the accused were sentenced to death penalty and some with life A
imprisonment and other sentences. The Sessions Court had referred its
judgement and order to the High Court for confirmation of the death
penalty awarded to some of the accused under Section 366 Cr.P.C.,
which was registered as RT No. 02 of 2021. The accused also had filed
separate nine appeals before the High Court challenging the judgement
B
and order passed by the Sessions Court in the said sessions case. All the
said appeals were directed to be tagged with RT No. 02 of 2021 by the
High Court.
5) As transpiring from the impugned order, the High Court after
ascertaining the convenience of all the advocates appearing for the parties C
had fixed the date for final hearing on 15.06.2022 vide the order dated
27.04.2022. Thereafter, the roster was changed and the matters were
listed on 06.09.2022 on which date the hearing was adjourned at the
request made by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and
therefore, it was again adjourned to 14.09.2022 for final disposal. On
14.09.2022, though the State Public Prosecutor was ready to argue, one D
of the learned senior advocates from Delhi appeared before the High
Court and requested the High Court to adjourn the hearing. At that time,
the State Public Prosecutor drew the attention of the High Court to a
letter dated 05.09.2022 sent by Mr. G. Sriram, learned counsel appearing
for the present appellant (accused no. 1) P. Ponnusamy, the accused no. E
02 Mary Pushpam and the accused no. 03 Basil, addressed to the
Inspector (Law and Order) E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai,
asking him to produce certain documents, stating therein inter-alia that
the said documents were required for fair adjudication of their case, in
the light of the Supreme Court’s decision (in case of Manoj and others
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 248-250 of 2015 F
decided on 20th May, 2022). The said letter was placed on record by the
State Public Prosecutor. On the said date i.e., 14.09.2022, the learned
senior advocate who had come from Delhi assured the court that she
had discussed with all the counsels who were appearing for the appellants
and that all had assured her that they would proceed with the hearing on G
17.10.2022. The High Court appraised her that the case pertained to the
sentence of death penalty, which had to be completed within six months
and that for the last one year there was no progress in the case on
account of non-cooperation of the accused. However, she repeatedly
assured the court that no one would seek adjournment on 17.10.2022,
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A and therefore the High Court out of sheer courtesy and respect for the
senior advocate adjourned the case to 17.10.2022.
6) Despite such assurance having been given by the senior
advocate and all other advocates including other senior advocates
appearing for the other appellants-accused to the High Court to proceed
B with the hearing of the Reference case and the appeals, the appellant
rushed to this Court to hamper the hearing fixed before the High Court
on 17.10.2022. Such a dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and their
advocates and thereby deflecting the course of justice in the cases like
the present one, where some of the appellant-accused are facing the
C death penalty and some sentence of life imprisonment are strongly
deprecated. It is needless to say that the death Reference cases referred
by the Sessions Courts to the High Court have to be given utmost priority
and should be heard and completed by the High Court as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within six months. However, as transpiring
from the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order,
D which have remained unchallenged before us, it was only because of
thenon-cooperation on behalf of the counsels appearing for the appellant-
accused, the High Court was not able to hear the Reference case. The
court may not have to remind the senior advocates of their duties to
assist the courts for the cause of justice, and not to indulge into dilatory
E tactics and hamper the cause of justice.
7) Having said that, let us examine the merits of the submissions
made before us. Placing heavy reliance on the observations made by
this court in case of Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the
F appellant along with the other two accused on 05.09.2022 had sent a
letter addressed to the Inspector (Law and Order) E-4 Abiramapuram
Police Station, Chennai requesting him to produce certain documents as
mentioned in the letter, which were required for fair adjudication in the
case. He further submitted that till the copies of the documents demanded
by the accused as mentioned in the said letter were furnished to them, it
G was not possible for them to proceed with the hearing of the appeals or
the Reference case pending before the High Court. According to them,
the observations made by this Court in para 177 to 179 in case of Manoj
and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) were very much
significant for safeguarding the rights of the accused to a fair investigation
H carried out by the mighty State’s police machinery; and that the interest
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 275
[BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

of the justice warranted that the further hearing of RT No. 02 of 2021 A
pending before the High Court be stayed till the appellants and other
accused were provided with the documents demanded by them.
8) The said submissions made by the learned senior advocates
appearing for the appellant deserve to be out rightly rejected, having
been advanced out of sheer misconception of the law and B
misinterpretation of the observations made by this Court in case of Manoj
and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). The precise
observations made by this Court in para 177, 178 and 179 of the judgement
in the said case of Manoj and others may be reproduced here under: -
“177. In this manner, the public prosecutor, and then the trial court’s C
scrutiny, both play an essential role in safeguarding the accused’s
right to fair investigation, when faced with the might of the state’s
police machinery.
178. This view was endorsed in a recent three judge decision of
this court in Criminal trials guidelines regarding Inadequacies and D
Deficiencies, in re v. State of Andhra Pradesh. This court has
highlighted the inadequacy mentioned above, which would impede
a fair trial, and inter alia, required the framing of rules by all states
and High Courts, in this regard, compelling disclosure of a list
containing mention of all materials seized and taken in, during E
investigation-to the accused. The relevant draft guideline, approved
by this Court, for adoption by all states is as follows:
“4. SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 173,
207 AND 208 CR.PC
F
Every Accused shall be supplied with statements of witness
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC and a list of
documents, material objects and exhibits seized during
investigation and relied upon by the Investigating Officer (I.O)
in accordance with Sections 207 and 208, Cr.PC.
G
Explanation: the list of statements, documents, material objects
and exhibits shall specify statements, documents, material
objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the Investigating
Officer.”

H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A 179. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the
prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should as a matter of rule,
in all criminal trials, comply with the above rule, and furnish the
list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which
are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding
officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with
B
such rules.”
9) It may be noted that the draft guidelines were given by this
Court to all the High Courts and the State Governments and Union of
India in the suo-moto proceedings initiated by this Court under Article
C 32, during the course of hearing of a criminal appeal, whereby the court
had noticed certain common deficiencies occurring during the course of
criminal trials and certain practices adopted by the trial courts in the
criminal proceedings. The said suomoto proceedings were registered as
“Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and
Deficiencies, in Re Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1.” The
D said case related, amongst others to deficiencies/lapses with regard to
the manner in which the documents (list of witnesses, list of exhibits, list
of material objects) referred to and presented and exhibited in the
judgements, and lack of uniform practices in regard to preparation of
injury reports, deposition of witnesses, translation of statements,
E numbering and nomenclature of witnesses, labeling of material objects
etc. which often led to a asymmetries and hamper appreciation of
evidence, which in turn had a tendency prolonging the proceeding
sespecially at the appellate stage. The court in the said case had noticed
that on these aspects, some High Courts had framed the rules, however
some had not, which had led to a lack of clarity and uniformity in regard
F to the presentation of trial court proceedings and records, for the purpose
of appreciation at the High Court and Supreme Court level. The court in
the said case, after considering the suggestions/submissions of the Amici
Curie and of the counsels appearing for the High Courts, States and the
Union Territories, on “the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2020” prepared
G by the Amici Curie, had given the following directions vide the order
dated 20.04.2021:-
“19. The Court is of the opinion that the Draft Rules of Criminal
Practice, 2021, (which are annexed to the present order, and shall
be read as part of it) should be hereby finalised in terms of the
1
H (2021) 10 SCC 598
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 277
[BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

above discussion. The following directions are hereby issued: A
19.1. All High Courts shall take expeditious steps to incorporate
the said Draft Rules, 2021 as part of the rules governing criminal
trials, and ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and
practice directions are suitably modified, and promulgated
(wherever necessary through the Official Gazette) within 6 months B
from today. If the State Government’s co-operation is necessary
in this regard, the approval of the department or departments
concerned, and the formal notification of the said Draft Rules,
shall be made within the said period of six months.
19.2. The State Governments, as well as the Union of India (in C
relation to investigating agencies in its control) shall carry out
consequential amendments to their police and other manuals, within
six months from today. This direction applies, specifically in respect
of Draft Rules 1-3. The appropriate forms and guidelines shall be
brought into force, and all agencies instructed accordingly, within D
six months from today.”
10) From the above, it clearly emerges that this Court in the afore-
stated suo moto proceedings had directed all the High Courts to take
expeditious steps to incorporate the said Draft Rules as part of the Rules
governing criminal trials and to ensure that the existing rules, notifications, E
orders and practice are suitably modified and promulgated, wherever
necessary through the official gazette within six months from the date of
the said order. The court had also directed the State Governments as
well as the Union of India to carry out consequential amendments to the
police and other manuals. However, neither the High Courts nor the
State Governments appear to have taken any steps pursuant to the said F
directions. As a result thereof, the said Draft Rules have neither been
adopted by the respective High Courts/State Governments nor have come
into force. Unless and until the Draft Rules as suggested by the court in
the suo moto proceedings are incorporated by the High Courts in the
Rules governing criminal trials and unless the consequential amendments G
are made by the State Governments and the Union of India in the Police
and other Manuals, the same could not have been pressed into service
by any party to a criminal proceeding. The observations made in para
179 of the judgement in case of Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (Supra) were in the context of the said directions given by the
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A court in the suo moto proceedings and therefore were required to be
read in conjunction with the earlier paras 177 and 178 of the said
judgement. Meaning thereby, the prosecution is expected to comply with
the Draft Rule no. 4 pertaining to the supply of documents, as and when
the said set of Draft Rules are adopted by the High Courts and State
Governments, giving them a statutory force.
B
11) May it be noted that in any case, the Draft Rule no. 4 with
regard to the supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208
Cr.P.C. is part of the Chapter I of the said Draft Rules, to be followed
during the course of investigation and before the commencement of the
C trial. The said Draft Rule no.4 as and when brought into force after
following the due process of law could be pressed into service by the
accused only during the course of investigation and during the course of
trial, and not at the appellate stage before the High Court or the Supreme
Court.

D 12) In the aforesaid premises, the attempt made on behalf of the
appellant-accused and the other accused to delay the hearing of the
appeals and the death Reference case pending before the High Court,
under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the
Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible. As observed by the
High Court in the impugned order, “all the papers relied upon by the
E prosecution were placed by the Investigating Officer before the trial
court and copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
The same have got translated as legal evidence during trial and the case
of the accused should have to stand or fall based on that unless additional
evidence is sought to be taken.”
F 13) This Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the
case, and dismisses the present appeal being devoid of merits.
14) The registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all
the High Courts, who in turn shall circulate the same to their respective
subordinate courts.
G
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order dated
14.09.2022 in RT No. 2/2021, by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
In those proceedings, the High Court had by order dated 27.04.2022
H fixed the hearing of the main proceeding – which is a death reference.
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 279
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

2. The appellant and some others were convicted under Section A
302 of the IPC along with other provisions and Section 120B. The
appellant (A1); A3; A4; A5; A7; A8 and A9 were sentenced to death.
Consequently, reference was made to the High Court which was seized
of all the proceedings and heard it from time to time. On 27.04.2022
after ascertaining convenience of all the counsels the appeals were listed
B
for final hearing on 15.06.2022. The judgment of Bela Trivedi J., has
recounted all these facts in detail. The further proceedings which took
place before the High Court, the hearing and the order made on
14.09.2022, declining to direct State to produce documents enlisted in
letter written to the public prosecutor on behalf of the appellant on
05.09.2022, is impugned here. C
3. The final order proposed by Bela Trivedi J., of rejecting an
appeal is in our opinion justified in the circumstances of the case.
However, we are unable to agree with the observations made during the
course of her order as to the nature of the directions made in Suo Motu
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017, concerning the right of the accused to be D
supplied with documents or material, seized or collected during the
investigation, but not relied upon.
4. While hearing a criminal appeal1 and connected matters, concern
was raised regarding common deficiencies and practices adopted by
trial courts in the course of criminal trial and disposal of cases, in the E
absence of uniform guidelines. This resulted in Suo Motu WP (Crl.) No.
1 of 2017, wherein this court appointed amici curiae, and issued notice to
all High Courts and governments of all States and Union Territories,so
general consensus could be arrived at regarding the need to amend rules
of practice/criminal manuals to bring about uniform best practices across F
the country.2 The court noted salient aspects and inconsistencies in the
practices and rules of the High Courts.
5. A wide consultative process was undertaken. Firstly, High
Courts and governments of States/Union Territories, filed their responses.
Taking note of these, the amici curiae prepared a consultation paper and G
invited written responses from stakeholders. Next, acolloquium was
convened on 30.03.2019 to discuss this paper, wherein High Courts,
governments of States/Union Territories and police departments
1
Criminal Appeal No. 400/2006
2
Order dated 30.03.2017 in Suo Motu WP (Crl) No. 1/2017. H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A participated. Based on the feedback, the amici curiae prepared a report
containing the ‘Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020’ which was taken
on record on 05.03.2020 and made available3 publicly through the
Supreme Court website.
6. Before passing directions on the same, this court thought it
B appropriate to hear the High Courts again, on these draft rules. 4 Once
responses were received from all High Courts, the matter was heard; in
the final order dated 20.04.20215 it was noted that most of the suggestions
had been agreed upon, except in regard to few aspects – the divergence,
or additional points of view, were taken note of6.
C 7. The amici curiae had pointed out that before the commencement
of the trial, the accused only receives a list of documents and statements
relied upon by the prosecution but is kept in the dark on other material in
the possession of the prosecution, even if it has exculpatory value. On
this, the court unequivocally held:
D “11. … This Court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list
of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/
208 CrPC, the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other
materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but
not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure
E that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are
necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he
may seek appropriate orders, under CrPC7 for their production
3
<https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/06032020_103012.pdf> (accessed on 31.10.2022,
18:28 pm).
4
See order dated 27.10.2020, and again on 19.01.2021 in Suo Motu WP (Crl) No. 1/
F 2017.
5
Reported as Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies,
In re. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 598.
6
Ibid, para 9.
7
"91. Summons to produce document or other thing.—(1) Whenever any court or any
officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or
other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial
G or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may
issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or
power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it,
or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.(2) Any person
required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be
deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be
H produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.(3) Nothing in this
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 281
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; A
the Draft Rules have been accordingly modified. [Rule 4(i)]”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Rule 4 of Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021, which was
appended to, and considered part and parcel of this court’s order, reads
as follows: B
“4. Supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208 CrPC.—
(i) Every accused shall be supplied with statements of witness
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and a list of documents,
material objects and exhibits seized during investigation and relied
upon by the investigating officer (IO) in accordance with Sections C
207 and 208 CrPC.
Explanation : The list of statements, documents, material objects
and exhibits shall specify statements, documents, material objects
and exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer.”
9. The matter was disposed of with the following directions:
D
“19. The Court is of the opinion that the Draft Rules of Criminal
Practice, 2021, (which are annexed to the present order, and shall
be read as part of it) should be hereby finalised in terms of the
above discussion. The following directions are hereby issued:
19.1. All High Courts shall take expeditious steps to incorporate
E
the said Draft Rules, 2021 as part of the rules governing criminal
trials, and ensure that the existing rules, notifications, orders and
practice directions are suitably modified, and promulgated
(wherever necessary through the Official Gazette) within 6 months
from today. If the State Government’s co-operation is necessary
in this regard, the approval of the department or departments F
concerned, and the formal notification of the said Draft Rules,
shall be made within the said period of six months.
19.2. The State Governments, as well as the Union of India (in
relation to investigating agencies in its control) shall carry out
consequential amendments to their police and other manuals, within G
six months from today. This direction applies, specifically in respect
of Draft Rules 1-3. The appropriate forms and guidelines shall be
section shall be deemed—(a) to affect Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891) or(b) to
apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the
custody of the postal or telegraph authority.” H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A brought into force, and all agencies instructed accordingly, within
six months from today.”
10. The Draft Rules framed, therefore, were a product of a thorough
consultative exercise undertaken to remedy asymmetries caused by the
lack of uniformity in Rules across States, which could hamper appreciation
B of evidence, and in turn delay proceedings, especially at the appellate
stage. Recognition of the need to streamline trials or mitigate delays,
however, cannot come at the cost of the accused’s right to fair trial.
11. Taking note of the case law in Siddharth Vasisht @ Manu
Sharma v. State of NCT Delhi8, this court in Manoj &Ors. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 9, highlighted the dual role played by the public
C prosecutor and the court in safeguarding the accused’s right to fair
investigation and trial, by scrutinizing the material and ensuring fair
disclosure. In light of this, and the aforementioned draft Rule 4, this
court went on to hold in Manoj that:
“…In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the
D prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should as a matter of rule,
in all criminal trials, comply with the above rule, and furnish the
list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which
are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding
officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with
E such rules.”
12. In addition to the decision in Manu Sharma(as noticed in
Manoj), there is another decision –Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of
Maharashtra 10 - which had highlighted how the requirement of
disclosure, is an intrinsic part of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of
the Constitution.11 Relying upon its previous decision in V.K. Sasikala v.
F State12, this court noted in Manjeet Singh Khera:
“…In that case, the documents were forwarded to the court under
Section 173(5) CrPC but were not relied upon by the prosecution
8
(2010) 6 SCC 1 (referred to as ‘Manu Sharma’). See paragraphs 187, 199, 201, 202,
218-222 (relied on in Manoj &Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh).
9
G Judgment dated 20.05.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 248-250 of 2015; 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 677.
10
(2013) 9 SCC 276
11
This was also reaffirmed in P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161
where it was held that “furnishing of documents to the accused under Section 207 of the
1973 Code is a facet of right of the accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution”.
12
H (2012) 9 SCC 771
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 283
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

and the accused wanted copies/inspection of those documents. A
This Court held that it was incumbent upon the trial court to supply
the copies of these documents to the accused as that entitlement
was a facet of just, fair and transparent investigation/trial and
constituted an inalienable attribute of the process of a fair trial
which Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees to every accused.
We would like to reproduce the following portion of the said B
judgment discussing this aspect: (V.K. Sasikala case [V.K. Sasikala
v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] , SCC p.
788, para 21)
“21. The issue that has emerged before us is, therefore, somewhat
larger than what has been projected by the State and what has C
been dealt with by the High Court. The question arising would no
longer be one of compliance or non-compliance with the provisions
of Section 207 CrPC and would travel beyond the confines of the
strict language of the provisions of CrPC and touch upon the larger
doctrine of a free and fair trial that has been painstakingly built up
by the courts on a purposive interpretation of Article 21 of the D
Constitution. It is not the stage of making of the request; the efflux
of time that has occurred or the prior conduct of the accused that
is material. What is of significance is if in a given situation the
accused comes to the court contending that some papers
forwarded to the court by the investigating agency have not been
exhibited by the prosecution as the same favours the accused the E
court must concede a right to the accused to have an access to
the said documents, if so claimed. This, according to us, is the
core issue in the case which must be answered affirmatively. In
this regard, we would like to be specific in saying that we find it
difficult to agree with the view [V.K. Sasikala v. State, 2012 SCC F
OnLine Kar 9209] taken by the High Court that the accused must
be made to await the conclusion of the trial to test the plea of
prejudice that he may have raised. Such a plea must be answered
at the earliest and certainly before the conclusion of the trial, even
though it may be raised by the accused belatedly. This is how the
scales of justice in our criminal jurisprudence have to be balanced.” G
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is true that this court in V.K. Sasikala (supra) was dealing
with material/documents that were forwarded to the Magistrate under
Section 173 CrPC, but were not being relied upon by the prosecution.
H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A However, it is undeniable that there could also arise a situation wherein
the investigating officer, ignores or does not rely on seized documents,
material or evidence which favours the accused, and fails to forward it
to the Magistrate [as required under Section 173 CrPC, specifically sub-
section (6)]. Merely because it is not already on the record of the court,
cannot disentitle the accused from accessing material that may have
B exculpatory value. It is this gap, that was recognised and addressed
(paragraph 11 of final order) in the suo-moto proceedings, and suitably
codified in the text of the Draft Rule 4, by introducing a requirement of
providing a list (at the commencement of the trial)of all documents,
material, evidence, etc. seized during the course of investigation or in
the possession of the prosecution,regardless of whether the prosecution
C plans to rely on it. The facts in Manoj, having reflected such a situation
(of suppression of evidence that favoured the accused) similarly,
necessitated elaboration of this right.
14. The framework that emerges (by reading Section 173, 207,
208 and Draft Rule 4) is that based on the list of statements, documents,
D etc. received at the commencement of the trial, the accused can seek
appropriate orders under Section 91 of the CrPC, wherein the magistrate
on application of judicial mind, may decide on whether it ought to be
called for. Additionally, by virtue of Section 39113 of the CrPC, the
appellate court, if it deems necessary, may take further evidence (or
E direct it be taken by a magistrate or court of sessions) upon recording
reasoning. This safeguards the right of the accused in a situation where
concern has been raised regarding evidence or material in possession of
the prosecution, that had not been furnished, but was material to the trial
and disposal of the case.

F 15. By way of Miscellaneous Application No. 505/2022 in
SMW(Crl) No. 1 of 2017, this court was apprised of the fact that some
13
391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.—(1) In
dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional
evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence
itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High
Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.
G
(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the
Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court
shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.
(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the
additional evidence is taken.
(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of
H Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.
P. PONNUSAMY v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 285
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

states had complied, and other had not complied with the directions in A
final order dated 20.04.202114 regarding adoption of the Draft Rules and
amending police manuals, etc. in a time-bound manner (6 months); the
states were directed15 to comply within 8 weeks and the matter is still
pending.
16. That some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union B
Territories have failed to comply with this court’s order and are delayed
in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the concerned police/practice
manuals, cannot prejudice the right of an accused (to receive this list of
the statements, documents, material, etc. in the possession of the
prosecution), which has unequivocally been recognized by this court inits C
final order16 of the suo-moto proceedings (paragraph 11, extracted above),
itself.Further, tosay that the judgment in Manoj in relation to this, and
the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents, material,
etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted– would lead
to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state,
prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another. D

17. As stated earlier, the requirement of disclosure elaborated on
in Manoj, not only was premised on the formulation of draft rules, but
normatively premised on the ratio of the three-judge bench decision in
Manu Sharma (supra). In these circumstances, the proper and suitable
interpretation of the disclosure requirement in Manoj (supra) would be E
that:
(a) It applies at the trial stage, after the charges are framed.
(b) The court is required to give one opportunity of disclosure,
and the accused may choose to avail of the facility at that F
stage.
(c) In case documents are sought, the trial court should exercise
its discretion, having regard to the rule of relevance in the
context of the accused’s right of defence. If the document
or material is relevant and does not merely have remote G
14
Suo Motu WP (Crl) No. 1/2017
15
By order dated 28.04.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 505/2022 in
SMW(Crl) No. 1/2017.
16
Order dated 20.04.2021 in Suo Motu WP (Crl) No. 1/2017, reported as Criminal
Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In re. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 10 SCC 598. H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R.

A bearing to the defence, its production may be directed. This
opportunity cannot be sought repeatedly – the trial court
can decline to issue orders, if it feels that the attempt is to
delay.
(d) At the appellate stage, the rights of the accused are to be
B worked out within the parameters of Section 391 CrPC.
18. That the accused, has a right to fair trial, was not in doubt; but
what is reiterated is that this right is manifested in the fair disclosure
requirement elaborated above. While the concern of delay in conclusion
of trial undoubtedly weighs heavily in the mind of the judge, it cannot
C entail compromise of the right of the accused to fair investigation and
trial.
19. Having regard to the above discussion we are of the opinion
that the circumstances in which the request was made – through the
letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated
D opportunities, was not justified. The appellant could have sought recourse
by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures
set out above, well in time. We therefore agree that the appeal made at
this late stage, appears to be to prolongthe hearing. In these
circumstances, the Court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly
E dismissed.

Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

F

G

H