Kerala High Court Orders Criminal Courts To Obtain Accused's Endorsement Confirming Supply Of Materials Before Trial Begins

For context, according to Rule 19(4) of CRP, every accused shall be supplied with details of witnesses examined during investigation and a list of documents as mentioned in Section 173, 207 and 208 of Cr.PC. Additionally, every accused shall be supplied with a list of material objects which the Investigating Officer relies upon. The list also shall specify the witnesses, documents and materials that are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer.

Justice A Badharudeen, delivered the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case seeking compliance of Rule 19(4) of CRP.

The trial was kept in abeyance by an order of the Single Judge, though the examination of witnesses was scheduled to start from 01.12.2025 onwards. The Court was informed that the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 01.12.2025, issued an order for compliance of Rule 19(4) CRP and hence the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition.

While allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition, the Court noted that there are instances of accused flagging non-compliance of Rule 19 (4) CRP so as to stall the trial after the service of summonses to witnesses.

The Court noted that in the present case the Special Judge has failed to comply with the direction issued by the Court in Akkhil Sabu v State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 49], where all Criminal Courts in the District Judiciary were directed to ensure compliance of Rule 19(4) of CRP before trial.

“It is discernible that even though the trial court scheduled this case for examination of the witnesses much earlier, i.e. as per order dated 11.08.2025, the accused person did not raise any contention regarding non-compliance with Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982 till 10.11.2025. It seems that usually such challenges would be raised just before the start of examination of the witnesses and the intention is to delay the trial.” Court added.

The Court further observed that the concerned Judge would have made preparation for examination of the witnesses without scheduling any other cases and such last minute challenges would result in the concerned Judge becoming workless for the days covered in the schedule.

The Court thus directed the District Judiciary to ensure compliance with Rule 19(4) of CRP before scheduling the case and obtain endorsement to that effect in the proceedings sheet of the case from the accused or his counsel to avoid such challenges of non-compliance.

The Registry has been directed to communicate this direction to all Criminal Courts in the District Judiciary. It was further noted that non compliance of the order would warrant contempt proceedings against the officers, once it is noticed by the Court.

Case Title: Mohan Abraham v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl. M C 10878/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 815

Counsel for Petitioner: S Rajeev, V Vinay, M S Aneer, Sarath K P, Anilkumar C R, K S Kiran Krishnan, Azad Sunil, Dipa V, Akash Cherian Thomas

Counsel for Respondents: Rajesh A (Spl. PP- VACB), Rekha S (Sr. PP- VACB)