In a notable ruling, the division bench of the High Court in Bengaluru has dismissed a petition filed by Mohammed Shiab, an accused in the murder case of BJP Yuva Morcha member Praveen Nettaru from Dakshina Kannada. The petition sought to mandate that investigative officers sign each page of the case diary (CD) to safeguard against potential tampering.
The bench, led by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria, clarified that there are no existing legal requirements for such signatures. The court stated, “According to current laws, there are no rules that allow for signing the case diary. Any disputes can be analyzed under existing laws, and the court cannot introduce new laws in the name of analysis.”
Emphasising the limitations of judicial interpretation, the bench remarked, “The court has the authority to interpret the words in statutes but cannot add extra words once the legislation is drafted.” This decision underscores the court’s adherence to existing legal frameworks while reinforcing the importance of legislative clarity.
In the context of the Praveen Nettaru murder case, the trial court had previously instructed the investigating officer to submit the case diary. Following this submission, accused Mohammed Shiab filed a memorandum requesting that the officer sign each page of the diary upon submission, citing concerns over possible modifications or additions. However, the trial court rejected this request on November 16, 2022.
Challenging the trial court’s decision, Shiab escalated the matter to the High Court. After reviewing the case, the High Court upheld the trial court’s ruling and dismissed the plea, reiterating the lack of statutory basis for the petition’s demands.
This ruling has significant implications for legal procedures and the management of case diaries in criminal investigations. It clarifies the scope of judicial authority and reaffirms the necessity for legal provisions to be established through appropriate legislative channels rather than judicial intervention.
As the case continues, the outcome may influence future discussions on procedural safeguards in criminal investigations, particularly regarding the integrity of case documentation.