2016 (7) TMI 1697 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to SHO to supply certain documents - validity of calling for documents at the preliminary stage of framing of charge - Section 207 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - A bare reading of provisions contained in Section 207 of Cr.P.C. shows that it is the obligation of the Magistrate to see that all the documents which are necessary for the accused for proper conduct of his defence, are furnished to him well before the trial - A conjoint reading of section 173(5), 173(6) and first proviso attached to Section 207 of Cr.P.C. leaves no scope of doubt that it is the bounden duty of the police officer to forward to the Magistrate all the statements mentioned in subsection (5)(b) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. without any exception so as to enable the Magistrate to discharge his duty under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by furnishing copies of such statements to the accused. In case the police officer considers that the disclosure of any part of such statements would not be expedient in the public interest nor essential in the interest of justice, he is supposed to append a note in his forwarding memorandum to the Magistrate to that effect along with his reasons for withholding such statements or parts thereof from the accused. It is settled law that an impartial and fair opportunity in a trial is the legal right of an accused. Justice can only be ensured if the rules of procedure are diligently adhered to. No court shall allow breach of these principles - In the instant case, accused persons / respondent nos. 2 to 5 are not seeking to produce any document nor are they seeking to produce any material to prove their innocence but they have called upon the Investigating Officer of the case to supply the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation report of the committee which was received by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Relying upon judgment, in Ashutosh Verma 2014 (12) TMI 1405 - DELHI HIGH COURT , this Court observed that the petitioner cannot be denied an access to the documents in respect of which prayers have been made in the petition merely because CBI does not consider it relevant. If there is a situation that arises wherein an accused seeks documents which support his case and do not support the case of the prosecution and the investigating officer ignores these documents and forward only those documents which favour the prosecution, in such a scenario, it would be the duty of investigating officer to make such documents available to the accused. Reverting to the case in hand, accused persons called upon the Investigating Officer to supply documents / statements as mentioned in the applications. In fact, in the charge-sheet also there was a reference that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had received the inquiry report etc. Under the circumstances, in order to do substantial justice to both the parties, the application moved by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 was allowed. The State has not challenged the impugned order meaning thereby it is not averse to supply the documents as ordered by the learned Trial Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for any interference - the petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order directing the SHO to supply certain documents to the accused.
2. Applicability of Sections 91, 173, and 207 of Cr.P.C. in the context of supplying documents to the accused.
3. Rights of the accused to receive documents during the investigation and trial process.
4. Interpretation of relevant case laws regarding the supply of documents to the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Directing the SHO to Supply Documents:
The petition challenges the order dated 02.04.2016 by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing the SHO to supply certain documents to the accused. The petitioner contends that the order overlooked the mandate of Section 91 Cr.P.C., which cannot be invoked by the accused at the preliminary stage of framing charges. The court, however, found that the application was rightly allowed as the documents were necessary for a fair trial, and the State did not contest the order, implying no objection to supplying the documents.

2. Applicability of Sections 91, 173, and 207 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner argued that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not entitle the accused to all statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. However, the court highlighted that Sections 173(5), 173(6), and 207 Cr.P.C. collectively mandate the supply of all relevant documents to the accused. The court emphasized that it is the duty of the investigating officer to forward all documents and statements to the Magistrate, who then ensures their provision to the accused, except in cases where specific requests for exclusion are made under Section 173(6).

3. Rights of the Accused to Receive Documents:
The court reiterated that a fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused, which includes receiving all documents necessary for their defense. The judgment cited the case of Shakuntala vs. State of Delhi, emphasizing that withholding evidence collected during the investigation is impermissible. The accused must be provided with all statements and documents unless specific and justified exclusions are requested by the investigating officer.

4. Interpretation of Relevant Case Laws:
The court referred to the case of Debendra Nath Padhi, clarifying that it does not apply here as the accused were not seeking to produce documents but to obtain those collected during the investigation. The judgment also cited Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, affirming that the accused have an absolute right to receive all documents and statements submitted to the court. The court underscored the necessity of fair disclosure by the prosecution, including documents that may support the defense.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the order directing the SHO to supply documents to the accused was justified and necessary for ensuring a fair trial. The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, with the court finding no infirmity warranting interference. The judgment reaffirmed the principles of fair trial and the rights of the accused to access all relevant documents collected during the investigation.