Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 120B, 109, 341, 302 & 34 – Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020 – Right of accused to demand documents – Appellant along with other eight accused were convicted and sentenced by Sessions Court for the offences punishable u/s. 120B, 109, 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC – Some of them were sentenced to death penalty and some with life imprisonment – The Sessions Court had referred its judgment to the High Court for confirmation of the death penalty – Adjournments were sought several times by the parties – During the course of hearing before the High Court, appellant address a letter to Inspector, asking him to produce certain documents, which were required for fair adjudication of their case in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – In the meanwhile, the appellant approached Supreme Court – Held: (Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) The death Reference cases referred by the Sessions Courts to the High Court have to be given utmost priority and should be heard and completed by the High Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months – ‘Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2020’ were the draft guidelines were given by Supreme Court to all the High Courts and the State Governments and Union of India – However, neither the High Courts nor the State Governments appear to have taken any steps pursuant to the said directions – As a result thereof, the said Draft Rules have neither been adopted by the respective High Courts/State Governments nor have come into force – Unless they have been adopted, the same could not have been pressed into service by any party to a criminal proceeding – The attempt made on behalf of the appellant- accused and the other accused to delay the hearing, under the guise that they had demanded certain documents from the Investigating Officer was absolutely reprehensible – (Per S. Ravindra Bhat J. (for Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and himself)) : The Draft Rules framed, therefore, were a product of a thorough consultative exercise undertaken to remedy asymmetries caused by the lack of uniformity in Rules across States, which could hamper appreciation of evidence, and in turn delay proceedings, especially at the appellate stage – Some High Courts or governments of the States/Union Territories have failed to comply with Supreme Court’s order and are delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of an accused to receive the list of the statements – To say that the judgment in Manoj in relation to this, and the right of the accused to receive the list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the Draft Rules are adopted would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one State, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another.