The Supreme Court has recently observed that allowing the production of electronic copies of trial court records in criminal appeals, rather than having them produced in physical form, would lead to a more environmentally conscious approach, along with facilitating quicker availability of records.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol suggested amendment of sub-rules 2 and 3 of Rule 5 of Order XX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, noting that the rules presently called for the production of physical copies of original trial court records in criminal appeals involving a sentence of life imprisonment or death penalty.
The calling of such records in other cases was subject to specific orders of the concerned Bench.
The Apex Court proposed that Sub-rule 3 should be amended to insert the words ‘soft copy’ before the words ‘original records’, resulting in e-copies of the Original Records being requisitioned.
It said that such requisition of the soft copy of the record, after the amendment, could be extended to cases where leave was granted against an order of acquittal or conviction.
As per the Bench, once received, such soft copy of the records could be provided to the counsel appearing for the parties.
The top court of the country further directed that the Court Registry place a copy of this judgement before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
In its November 9 order, the Bench also expressed its displeasure over the trial court records not being duly placed before the Apex Court in several cases, leading to unnecessary adjournments and delays.
It said the practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed on record should be deprecated. Such practices often caused repeated adjournments, which went to the root of pendency and delay in disposing of appeals, it added.
The Apex Court made these observations while dismissing appeals filed by two persons accused in a 2003 alcohol poisoning case. Both the Kerala High Court and the trial court had earlier convicted and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The bench noted that it did not find any ground to interfere with the conviction or sentence, adding that there was nothing perverse in the findings of the courts below, nor had they discarded any vital evidence.
However, the appeal of one of the accused was abated since he had passed away.
The Bench noted that there was no doubt about the involvement of the accused in the sale and mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit as part of the conspiracy, resulting in deaths and injuries to many innocent persons.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate R. Basant, along with Advocates Gaurav Agarwal and Lakshmi Kaimal.
Advocates Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Subhash Chandran K.K. and Ashly Harsahd appeared for the Kerala government.
(Case title: Sajeev vs State of Kerala)