1979 (4) TMI 169 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Legality of the Magistrate's order issuing Letters Rogatory.
2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Relevance and admissibility of evidence obtained through Letters Rogatory.
4. Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the collection of evidence.

Detailed Analysis

1. Legality of the Magistrate's Order Issuing Letters Rogatory
The petitioner challenged the order dated April 24, 1978, issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing a letter of request to be sent to the U.S. District Court to obtain documents from the Washington Mutual Savings Bank. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal as the Magistrate himself acknowledged that he could not invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that the documents had already been received in India and were in the possession of the C.B.I. The Court held that even if the order was illegal, the documents' possession by the C.B.I. rendered the issue academic.

2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The petitioner contended that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that allowed the Magistrate to issue Letters Rogatory to a foreign court. The Court assumed the order was not supported by any provisions of the new Criminal Procedure Code but declined to interfere, emphasizing that the documents were already in possession of the C.B.I. and could be used as evidence if relevant and admissible.

3. Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence Obtained through Letters Rogatory
The Court referenced the Privy Council's decision in *Kuruma v. The Queen* and the Supreme Court's decision in *Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection*, stating that the manner in which evidence is obtained does not affect its admissibility if it is relevant. The Court concluded that the documents could be used as evidence by the prosecution, regardless of how they were acquired.

4. Locus Standi of the Petitioner to Challenge the Collection of Evidence
The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being an accused, had no locus standi at the investigation stage to challenge the manner of evidence collection. The law does not grant the accused the right to interfere with evidence collection; the accused can only challenge the evidence's admissibility when it is tendered in court. The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit as the petitioner could not claim relief at this stage.

Conclusion
The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the collection of evidence during the investigation stage. The Court also noted that the documents' possession by the C.B.I. rendered any interference with the Magistrate's order academic. The evidence's admissibility would be determined based on its relevance and not the manner of its acquisition.