MUKUND LAL & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA.& ANR.
Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. is constitutionally valid, embodies necessary safeguards to ensure fair trial; court's discretionary power is sufficient to protect accused's rights and public interest; embargo on accused's access to case diary is partial and not absolute.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Mukund Lal; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Anr.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Petition (criminal) / Final Decision on Constitutional Validity, Writ Petitions Dismissed
- Outcome
- Petitions dismissed; constitutional validity of Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. upheld
- Legal Topics
- Case Diary Confidentiality, Accused's Rights, Judicial Discretion, Section 172(3) Cr.p.c., Privilege and Public Interest
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mukund Lal
Petitioner
Union of India
Respondent
Anr.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) / Final Decision on Constitutional Validity, Writ Petitions Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Section 172(3) of Cr.P.C. is constitutionally valid and reasonable?
- 2 Are the rights of the accused safeguarded despite the embargo on access to case diaries?
Ratio Decidendi
Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. is constitutionally valid, embodies necessary safeguards to ensure fair trial; court's discretionary power is sufficient to protect accused's rights and public interest; embargo on accused's access to case diary is partial and not absolute.
Court Disposition
Petitions dismissed; constitutional validity of Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. upheld
Orders
- Petitions dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment