Allowed

Mujeeb Rehman v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC19 Oct 2022OP(Crl.)/164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal trial where the accused is in custody, the High Court of Kerala permitted the accused to view CCTV footage contained in a pen drive in the presence of his counsel. This was granted to enable the accused to instruct counsel for effective cross-examination, directing the trial court to facilitate arrangements within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permited petitioner to view visuals in presence of counsel; directed trial court to enable viewing within two weeks or next posting.

Mujeeb Rehman Vs Station House Officer — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

O.P.(Crl.).No.164/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

OP(CRL.) NO. 164 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 657/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, MAVELIKKARA

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

MUJEEB REHMAN, AGED 40, SON OF RAJAN ABOOBEKKAR, PUTHUPURACKAL HOUSE, ERUVA MURI, KAYAMKULAM REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE SUNITHA MUJEEB, PUTHUPURACKAL HOUSE, ERUVA MURI, KAYAMKULAM., PIN – 690 502.

¶11

BY ADVS. P.SREEKUMAR ARUN ROY ASWIN KUMAR M J RENOY VINCENT SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER , KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690 502.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.

¶15

SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P.(Crl.).No.164/22

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.657 of 2020, pending before the Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Mavelikara. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No.1385 of 2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302, 324, 202, 325, 201, 212 and 34 of IPC.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is as follows: The prosecution produced one pen drive as T.R.No.287/2020, which relates to the commission of the crime and was collected from the CC TV camera placed in a shop. Even though the copy of the said visuals were already given to the learned counsel for the accused, the counsel appearing for him could not watch the visuals thereon in the presence of the accused so as to enable him to get necessary clarification in respect of the same. This is because of the reason that ,the petitioner/1^st accused is under custody.

¶22

This original petition was filed in such circumstances with the following prayers:

¶23

“i) Permit the petitioner to view the visuals contained in TR.No.287 of 2020 pen drive in

¶24

O.P.(Crl.).No.164/22

¶25

¶26

the presence of his counsel and to instruct his counsel on the contents of the same.

¶27

ii) To set aside the exhibit P3 common order passed by the trial court.

¶28

iii) To direct the Trial Court to consider the request made by the petitioner’s counsel for additional time to cross examine the witness, since he was engaged in the case only on 17.08.2021.’

¶29

iv) To issue any other order or direction as is deemed fit by this Honourable Court in the greater interest of justice.”

¶30

When this original petition came up for admission, the

¶31

proceedings of trial was stayed by this Court on 19.04.2022 and the same is now being extended from time to time. When this original petition came up for consideration today, the learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that, as of now, the chief examination of five witnesses were already done, and the cross examination of all the said witnesses could not be conducted as the learned counsel appearing for the accused sought to defer the same due to the fact that they did not get the opportunity to watch the visuals along with the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that he has no objection in granting an opportunity to the petitioner/1st accused to watch the visuals

¶32

O.P.(Crl.).No.164/22

¶33

¶34

contained in TR.No.287/2020 in the presence of his counsel so as to enable him to give necessary instructions to the counsel in that regard.

¶35

In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this original petition by granting relief No.1 sought in this original petition. Therefore, it is directed that appropriate arrangements shall be made by the Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Mavelikara, to enable the petitioner to watch the visuals along with his counsel, if possible, on the next posting date or within a period of two weeks from date of production of a copy of this order. Upon such facility being given, the trial can be conducted as per the schedule fixed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶36

Subject to the above, this original petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/20.10.22

O.P.(Crl.).No.164/22

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 164/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY APPLICATION DATED 18.08.2021 IN S.C. NO. 657 OF 2020 ALONG WITH ITS PROCEEDINGS

¶45

Exhibit2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL AS CRL M P NO 533 OF 2021 SC NO. 657 OF 2020 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS [FAST TRACK] COURT, MAVELIKARA

¶46

Exhibit3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL. M.P. NO 538 OF 2021 AND CRL M P NO 533 OF 2021 SC NO. 657 OF 2020 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS [FAST TRACK] COURT, MAVELIKARA

Mujeeb Rehman v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rehman v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan @ Murukeshan Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar @ Thampi Vs State of Kerala

Anoop K. J. Vs State of Kerala

Madukolu Chibuzor Samson Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Shine Lal (A1) Vs State of Kerala