Kerala High Court Calls For Amendments To Criminal Practice Rules For Adopting Electronic Tracking System, Digitization Of Records
In a recent suo moto case on missing properties from court custody, the Kerala High Court noted that Rule 184 of Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982 dealing with maintenance of property registers was not in consonance with the technological advancements of present times.Justice V.G Arun noted that amendments have to be made in Rule 184 for introducing recent technological advancements...
In a recent suo moto case on missing properties from court custody, the Kerala High Court noted that Rule 184 of Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982 dealing with maintenance of property registers was not in consonance with the technological advancements of present times.
Justice V.G Arun noted that amendments have to be made in Rule 184 for introducing recent technological advancements including digitizing records and registers.
“In my opinion, Rule 184 ought to be amended and provision should also made for digitizing the registers and records, in consonance with the recent developments. Digitization of the registers and introduction of electronic tracking system will help in preventing the stalemate of cases due to the missing, pilferage or damage of properties produced in court. I am expressing this opinion, being conscious of the fact that the case at hand is not an isolated instance of the missing of properties produced in court.”
The Court also directed the Rules Committee of the High Court to make necessary amendments in the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice for ensuring the safety of seized materials received and entered in the property register of one court while they were being transferred to another court and its subsequent return to the transferee court.
“While on the subject, it is also relevant to note that the Criminal Rules of Practice does not prescribe the procedure to be followed while transferring the properties received and entered in the Property Register of one court to another court and for ensuring that all such properties are returned by the transferee court. The above lacuna should be brought to the notice of the Rules Committee of the High Court, so that appropriate amendment can be suggested and incorporated in the Criminal Rules of Practice.”
The suo moto was initiated by the High Court based on a request made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the trial of a case, wherein the seized materials entered in the property register of the court were missing from the custody of the court.
Crime No.66 of 2000 was registered at Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode against ten accused persons on the allegation of forging false documents for obtaining fraudulent financial gain. The material objects such as stamp paper, official seal etc. were seized and received in the court custody. Their details were entered in the Property Register of the Court and case was numbered as CC No. 368/2009. Some of these properties were forwarded to Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-VI (JFCM-IV), Kozhikode for the purpose of conducting the trial in CC No. 279/2004. The trial in that case was over and the properties were recalled from JFCM-IV for conducting the trial in CC No. 368/2009. The Court was informed that some of the properties were missing from JFCM-IV and despite several efforts, they were not able to find it. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and a staff member was also punished for the missing articles.
Justice Arun noted that it was important to avoid situations leading to missing properties produced in the Court. The court examined Rule 184 of Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982 that deals with maintenance property registers in the Court and held that the provision contains sufficient safeguards with respect to the properties produced in court. It noted that the High Court has directed all subordinate judicial officers to follow the instructions in the Criminal Rules of Practice for maintenance of property registers. They were also informed to ensure that whenever clerks in charge of property registers were changed, the new clerk physically verifies and takes charge of all items of property. The Court noted that Junior Superintendent of the Court conducts quarterly physical verification of the property registers and submits certificate to the Magistrate.
The Court found that despite all the above safeguards in maintaining property registers in Rule 184, it was not sufficient to meet the technological developments of the present times.
“Now, the question arising for consideration is whether Rule 184 and the ancillary forms, introduced in the year 1982, are in tune with the present scenario. The answer can only be in the negative, considering the technological advancements in the past ten years…”
The Court noted that many technological advancements has been brought in over the last ten years such as e-filing and digitization of records. It noted that property registers also have to be digitized and electronic tracking system should be introduced for ensuring the safety of materials in the custody of the court.
On the above observations, the Court stated that the trial in CC No. 368/2009 can be proceeded with the available materials.
Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor P.S. Appu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: CRL.MC No. 1609 Of 2018