The Supreme Court (SC), in Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh case, held that the prosecution, in all criminal cases, shall furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer.
The public prosecutor, appointed under Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), occupies a statutory office of high regard. The Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority who serves as officers to the court. He is never a part of the investigating agency. The role of the Public Prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial, and not for a thirst to reach the case in conviction.
The court extensively referred to the observations made in Siddharth Vasisht @ Manu Sharma v State of NCT Delhi on the due process protection afforded to the accused, and its effect on fair disclosure responsibilities of the public prosecution.
The court noted the following provisions regarding supply of documents etc. in the draft guidelines approved in Criminal trials guidelines regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, in re v State of Andhra Pradesh.
The guidelines are:
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 207 and 208, CrPC.
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.
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 such rules.
