Fair disclosure rights cannot be used to delay appellate hearing; late document requests will not stall a death reference.

Fair disclosure rights concerning unrelied-upon material were explained as part of the accused's fair trial protection during investigation and trial, with any request for production of documents to be considered through the prescribed procedure on relevance. The Supreme Court said that this principle could not be invoked at the appellate stage to postpone hearing of the death reference and connected appeals, which is governed separately by the provisions on additional evidence. A late request made after final hearing was fixed and after repeated opportunities was found unjustified, and the Court deprecated dilatory tactics in death reference matters, permitting the High Court to proceed with the hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused could invoke the disclosure principles discussed in Manoj to postpone the hearing of the death reference and appeals at the appellate stage until documents were furnished; (ii) whether the late request for production of documents justified interference with the High Court's decision to proceed with the hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the accused could invoke the disclosure principles discussed in Manoj to postpone the hearing of the death reference and appeals at the appellate stage until documents were furnished.

Analysis: The disclosure principle recognised in the earlier decisions was explained as part of the accused's fair trial rights during investigation and trial, after the charges are framed, with the trial court exercising relevance-based discretion on any request for production of documents. The draft rules and the corresponding directions were also understood as operating in that procedural setting, and the appellate stage was said to be governed separately by the provisions relating to additional evidence. The Court rejected the attempt to use that principle as a basis to stop or defer the appellate hearing.

Conclusion: The accused could not rely on the disclosure principle to stall the appellate hearing, and the plea was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the late request for production of documents justified interference with the High Court's decision to proceed with the hearing.

Analysis: The request was made after the matter had already been fixed for final hearing and after repeated opportunities had been given. The Court held that the proper course was to seek relief by appropriate application within the procedure applicable to the case, rather than by a late-stage letter intended to delay the hearing. The Court also deprecated dilatory tactics in death reference matters and emphasised the need for expeditious disposal.

Conclusion: The request was not justified, and no interference with the High Court's order was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the High Court was permitted to proceed with the reference and connected appeals, and the judgment reaffirmed that fair disclosure rights cannot be converted into a device to delay appellate adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The accused's right to seek disclosure of unrelied-upon material is a facet of fair trial at the trial stage and must be pursued through the prescribed procedure; it cannot be used at the appellate stage to impede or postpone hearing unless additional evidence is properly sought under the applicable criminal procedure.

---