Bombay HC: Prosecution must examine the witnesses, who have no concern with the C.A. report and muddemal property if C.A. report and muddemal property is not received

  It is really surprising that since 2020, the prosecution could not secure the muddemal and C.A. report and seeking the time to open the trial. It also appears wrong practice to discharge the lawyer defending the accused at eleventh hour. The lawyer should intimate the Court well in advance about withdrawing the powers. The accused appears to have been unnecessarily languishing in jail. The Trial Court is directed to call for the Chemical Analysis report within a given time. The prosecution has to examine the witnesses, who have no concern with the C.A. report and muddemal property. So, at least there shall be some progress. Learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad to take care of and examine such witnesses, having no concern with C.A. report and muddemal. {Para 2}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH

AT AURANGABAD

908 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1671 OF 2022

VEDPRAKASH RAMNATH THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 28.06.2023

Print Page

CCTV in Muddemal Doesn't Mean 'No Copies': Supreme Court's Clear Mandate

 Subtitle: When police misuse “material object” status to avoid furnishing electronic evidence contents under Section 207 CrPC 

OPENING: THE SYSTEMATIC ABUSE IN YOUR COURT

It happens in hundreds of courts across India every week.

A pen drive containing CCTV footage of a crime arrives at the police station. The investigating officer seizes it, documents it, and files a chargesheet saying the video shows the accused committing the crime. The pen drive then goes into the muddemal (evidence room) of the court.

Print Page