Introduction:

In Mohan Abraham v. State of Kerala, Crl. M.C. 10878/2025, the Kerala High Court, through Justice A. Badharudeen, delivered an important ruling on procedural compliance in criminal trials, directing all Criminal Courts in the District Judiciary to obtain a written endorsement in the proceedings sheet from the accused or their counsel confirming compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 before scheduling a case for examination of witnesses, after finding that the absence of such endorsement had led to repetitive last-minute objections aimed at stalling trials. The case reached the High Court when the petitioner challenged the non-compliance of Rule 19(4) by the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, where the trial was scheduled to commence on 01.12.2025; however, upon issuance of a later order by the Special Judge ensuring compliance, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, prompting the Court to consider the larger systemic issue of trial delays caused through strategic objections by accused persons, especially regarding the supply of witness lists, documents, and material object lists mandated under Rule 19(4) and Sections 173, 207, and 208 CrPC. Justice Badharudeen observed that the case revealed a pattern where objections about non-compliance were raised only when the witness examination was about to begin, even though trial dates had been fixed much earlier, causing waste of judicial time and disrupting the functioning of courts that allocate full working days to witness examination.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M. S. Aneer, Sarath K. P., Anilkumar C. R., K. S. Kiran Krishnan, Azad Sunil, Dipa V., and Akash Cherian Thomas, argued that Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice is mandatory in nature, requiring supply of all documents, lists of witnesses examined during investigation, lists of relied-upon and not-relied-upon documents, and material objects before the trial begins. It was submitted that unless these materials are supplied and the accused is made fully aware of the evidence against them, proceeding with witness examination would violate the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner highlighted that Rule 19(4) explicitly requires the Investigating Officer to supply not only the documents relied upon but also those not relied upon, making it crucial for defense preparation. They relied on the earlier ruling in Akkhil Sabu v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 49], wherein the High Court had already issued directions to ensure strict compliance with Rule 19(4), and argued that despite this binding precedent, the Special Judge failed to ensure compliance before fixing the trial. They contended that such non-compliance could seriously prejudice the defense, create unfair surprises during trial, and undermine justice. They further noted that although the Special Judge issued a compliance order on 01.12.2025, it reflected a delayed response to a long-standing procedural lapse. On the other hand, the respondent-State, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh A. and Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha S., submitted that the petition had become infructuous because the trial court had already complied with Rule 19(4) as of 01.12.2025. It was argued that the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, acknowledging that compliance had been rendered and the grievance no longer survived. However, the prosecution also highlighted the recurring pattern wherein accused persons raise objections regarding Rule 19(4) compliance at the last minute purely to delay proceedings. The State emphasized that the accused in this case did not raise any complaint for months following the scheduling of the trial on 11.08.2025 and raised the issue only on 10.11.2025, suggesting an intention to stall. The Prosecutor asserted that such last-minute objections cause the trial court to remain idle on scheduled witness-examination days, leading to wastage of judicial time and affecting the docket of the judge who sets aside entire days for examination of witnesses. Thus, the State supported issuance of a general direction to prevent abuse of the system by ensuring that compliance was verified and endorsed before trials were scheduled.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice A. Badharudeen, after considering the submissions, allowed withdrawal of the petition but took the opportunity to address the systemic issue emerging from repeated abuse of Rule 19(4) objections. The Court criticized the Special Judge for not having complied with the binding precedent in Akkhil Sabu v. State of Kerala, wherein the High Court had categorically directed all criminal courts in the District Judiciary to ensure compliance with Rule 19(4) before commencing trial. The Court observed that accused persons often raise objections about non-compliance only at the last moment, usually just before the start of witness examination, despite having had earlier opportunities. This delay tactic, the Court noted, causes significant disruption to the judicial schedule because the presiding officer, having set aside time exclusively for witness examination, becomes workless on those days due to last-minute objections. The Court highlighted that this not only stalls the progress of the case but also undermines the efficient administration of justice by preventing courts from utilizing valuable judicial time. The judgment extensively discussed the purpose of Rule 19(4), emphasizing that it was designed to ensure transparency, inform the accused about the evidence relied upon, ensure access to non-relied-upon materials as well, and enable meaningful cross-examination. However, the Court stressed that the same rule cannot be weaponized to obstruct and delay the trial process. Therefore, the High Court issued a clear and binding direction applicable to the entire District Judiciary: before scheduling any case for examination of witnesses, the court must obtain an endorsement in the proceedings sheet from the accused or their counsel confirming that Rule 19(4) has been complied with. This endorsement, the Court held, would prevent later claims of non-compliance and eliminate last-minute trial disruptions. The Registry was directed to communicate this instruction to all criminal courts across the District Judiciary. Moreover, the Court issued a strong warning that any future non-compliance with this directive would amount to contempt of court, exposing judicial officers to disciplinary and legal consequences. This stern approach, the Court stated, was necessary to preserve the sanctity of judicial time and to ensure trials progress without unnecessary obstruction. In closing, Justice Badharudeen emphasized that Rule 19(4) is intended to safeguard fairness, but fairness cannot be conflated with delay, and procedural rights cannot be misused to sabotage the judicial process.