Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1048 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking production of documents - Part of documents which have been filed in Court by CBI - documents though seized or collected during investigation, but not filed in Court - documents referred to or reflected in correspondence of CBI and other authorities or in statements of witnesses - stand of the CBI was that since the same were not relied upon by the CBI in the charge-sheet, these documents cannot be given to the accused - HELD THAT - The issue raised in the present petition is to a great extent dealt by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto W.P.(CRL) No. 1/2017 2021 (4) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court issued guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trial and while the necessary draft rules were approved, in relation to the documents collected during the course of investigation and not relied upon by the prosecution thus not permitting copy thereof to the accused, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that This court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr. PC, the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, CBI cannot take the plea that since the Rules have not been notified as yet pursuant to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the directions as laid down in Para 11 of the judgment whereby the draft Rules were amended, would not have the force of law till the Rules are notified. In the decision VISHAKA ORS. VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN ORS. 1997 (8) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT Hon'ble Supreme Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of an enacted law to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee of sexual harassment and abuse and more particularly against sexual harassment at work places, laid down the guidelines and norms for due observance at all work places or other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the guidelines were laid down in exercise of power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the fundamental rights and further emphasized that the guidelines laid down should be treated as law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In the present case after the Court has taken the cognizance and is in the process of supplying documents, applications have been filed under Section 207 Cr.P.C. wherein to ensure a fair trial, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Special Court keeping due regard to the fact that at that stage it was deciding neither the relevancy of the unrelied documents nor whether they were of sterling quality. Indubitably, while passing an order of inspection of unrelied upon documents, the Court is bound to strike a balance between the competing interest of ensuring a fair trial to the accused as also maintaining the sanctity of further investigation, in case further investigation is to be carried on - In relation to the documents which have not been filed in the Court, the learned Trial Court did not direct the CBI to produce the said documents in Court and held that the ends of justice would be met if the accused persons are permitted to inspect the said documents lying in the Malkhana of CBI and to find out if any such document is relevant or vital for their defence or is of sterling quality to demolish the very case of prosecution and after making inspection learned counsel representing these accused shall let the Court know the details of these documents so that copies thereof can be supplied to them. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has already clarified that the permission to conduct inspection being granted by the Court was not in respect of those documents in relation to which the investigation by the CBI was still pending. Therefore, the apprehension of the CBI that inspection would hinder in the further investigation is wholly unwarranted. Claim of learned counsel for the CBI is that the CBI at the moment cannot pre-empt which document would be necessary for the further investigation - In the present case charge sheet has already been filed and thus the claim of CBI that it is not aware which document would be relevant for further investigation is unwarranted. This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Supply of documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. 2. Inspection of documents not relied upon by the prosecution. 3. Impact of further investigation on the supply and inspection of documents. 4. Legal precedents and guidelines regarding the supply and inspection of documents during criminal trials. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Supply of Documents to the Accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.: The CBI challenged the Special Judge's order directing the supply of certain documents to the accused. The documents in question were categorized as deficient, dim or illegible, incomplete or torn, parts of documents filed in court, documents seized but not filed in court, and documents referred to in correspondence or witness statements. The Special Judge ordered the supply of complete documents where only parts were filed by the CBI and allowed inspection of other documents under Clause 12.32 of the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020. 2. Inspection of Documents Not Relied Upon by the Prosecution: The Special Judge permitted the inspection of documents not relied upon by the prosecution but kept in the CBI Malkhana. This was based on the Supreme Court's guidelines in Suo Moto W.P.(CRL) No. 1/2017, which mandated that a list of all materials, including those not relied upon, should be provided to the accused to ensure a fair trial. The Special Judge emphasized the importance of allowing the defense to inspect these documents to determine their relevance and potential exculpatory nature. 3. Impact of Further Investigation on the Supply and Inspection of Documents: The CBI argued that allowing inspection of documents could hinder ongoing investigations. However, the Special Judge clarified that the inspection would not include documents related to ongoing investigations. The court balanced the need for a fair trial with the necessity of maintaining the integrity of further investigations. The CBI's claim that it could not pre-empt which documents might be needed for further investigation was deemed unwarranted since the charge sheet had already been filed. 4. Legal Precedents and Guidelines Regarding the Supply and Inspection of Documents During Criminal Trials: The judgment extensively discussed various legal precedents and guidelines. The Supreme Court's decision in Suo Moto W.P.(CRL) No. 1/2017 was pivotal, emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness in criminal trials by allowing the accused access to all relevant materials. The court also referred to the CBI Manual, which supports the inspection of documents kept in the Malkhana. The judgment cited cases like Debendra Nath Padhi and V.K. Sasikala to highlight the legal principles governing the supply and inspection of documents during different stages of a trial. Conclusion: The court upheld the Special Judge's order, finding no infirmity in allowing the inspection of documents not relied upon by the prosecution but kept in the CBI Malkhana. The decision was guided by the principles of ensuring a fair trial and the Supreme Court's directives to provide the accused with access to all relevant materials. The petition and application by the CBI were dismissed, reinforcing the accused's right to a comprehensive defense.
|