1991 (9) TMI 360 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the accused to copies of muddamal Articles if they consist of documents under Section 173(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Entitlement of Accused to Copies of Muddamal Articles:
1. Context and Background:
The primary issue revolves around whether the accused, charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are entitled to copies of certain documents seized during a raid (referred to as muddamal Articles) under Section 173(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Special Judge had earlier rejected the accused's request for these documents, stating that they do not fall under the purview of Section 173(7).

2. Arguments by the Petitioners:
The petitioners argued that even though the documents are seized as muddamal Articles, they remain documents as per Section 173(7) of the Code. They contended that the accused are entitled to these documents for their defense, as the prosecution is likely to rely on them. Denying access to these documents would hamper the defense and vitiate the trial.

3. Arguments by the State:
The State, represented by Mr. Trivedi, contended that muddamal Articles, even if they consist of documents, are not covered by Section 173(7). The State argued that the judgment in Praveenkumar J. Shah v. State does not apply to this case.

4. Legal Provisions:
- Section 173(5) and (7) of the Code: These sections outline the obligation of the investigating officer to provide the accused with documents on which the prosecution intends to rely.
- Sections 165 and 100 of the Code: These sections pertain to the search and seizure of Articles during an investigation.

5. Court's Analysis:
The court examined whether muddamal Articles, if they consist of documents, fall under the documents referred to in Section 173(7). It was noted that muddamal Articles are produced before the court for identification during the trial and are not necessarily used as documentary evidence. The prosecution clarified that they do not intend to use these Articles as documentary evidence against the accused.

6. Precedents and Interpretations:
- Praveenkumar's Case: The court distinguished this case, noting that it involved the supply of enlarged photographs used by an expert to form an opinion, which were necessary for the defense.
- Section 207 of the Code: This section outlines the documents that must be provided to the accused, including those forwarded with the police report under Section 173(5).

7. Conclusion:
The court concluded that muddamal Articles, even if they consist of documents, are not covered by Section 173(7) unless the prosecution intends to use them as documentary evidence. The prosecution's statement that they will not use these Articles as evidence means the accused are not entitled to copies. However, if the prosecution later decides to use these documents as evidence, the accused would then be entitled to copies as per Section 207.

8. Final Judgment:
The court upheld the Special Judge's order, dismissing the revision application. The interim relief was extended for four weeks to allow the petitioners to approach a higher forum.

Summary:
The High Court of Gujarat ruled that the accused are not entitled to copies of muddamal Articles under Section 173(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless the prosecution intends to use these documents as evidence. The court dismissed the revision application, upholding the Special Judge's order, and extended the interim relief for four weeks to allow the petitioners to seek further legal recourse.