Article 242Inspection et recollement de scellés de pièces à conviction

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2892/2536 (1993)

   Section 242 is satisfied where the inquiry official shows the suspect photographs of the exhibits and the suspect has not asked to inspect the objects themselves. That is a separate question from marking. Where the exhibits are bulky, such as a car and car parts that cannot conveniently be wrapped and sealed, photographing them counts as making a distinguishing mark and satisfies section 101.

   The exhibits in a receiving case were a car and car parts. The first defendant argued that the arrest record had not been made at the scene, contrary to section 103, that the exhibits had not been wrapped, sealed or marked, contrary to section 101, and that the investigating officer had never brought the exhibits for him to see, contrary to section 242. The Supreme Court rejected each ground. No law requires the arrest record to be made where the arrest or search took place, and since the defendant and his associates were arrested at different places at about the same time, making the record at the police station was appropriate; as it was an arrest record and not a search record, listing the exhibits or making an inventory was enough for section 103. On section 242, the inquiry official had shown the first defendant photographs of the exhibits and he had not asked to see the objects directly, which was sufficient. On section 101, because the exhibits were a car and car parts and could not conveniently be wrapped and sealed, photographing them counted as marking them.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1095/2501 (1958)

   Section 242 does not require that only the defendant inspect an exhibit; where an expert examined trace evidence on the vehicle and then testified to confirm the results, inspection by a witness suffices and the evidence is admissible.

   The defendant argued that trace evidence (blood, hair, thread) found on the vehicle had been taken away for expert examination without letting him view it, contrary to Section 242. The Supreme Court held the evidence was admissible, as the expert examined it and then testified to confirm the results, and Section 242 does not require that only the defendant inspect the exhibit; inspection by a witness suffices.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 740/2496 (1953)

   Opening and examining exhibits and transferring them to new containers during the investigation, if done in the presence of the witnesses concerned, does not breach Section 242 even though it is done in the suspect's absence.

   During the investigation of an opium case, the exhibits were opened, examined, and transferred to new containers in the presence of the relevant witnesses but in the suspect's absence. The Supreme Court held this did not breach Section 242, because inspection before the concerned witnesses satisfies the provision even when done behind the suspect's back.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.