2016 (3) TMI 503 - HC - Indian Laws

Copy of the documents lying in 42 gunny bags seized by Surat Police demanded - Payment of requisite fees - Held that - Once the statement, under the instruction of the officer, was made before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and the same is also reiterated today during the course of hearing, respondent No.1 shall provide the copy of the documents lying in 42 gunny bags to the applicant on payment of requisite fees. As and when such application is given by the applicant to the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 shall provide the certified copies of required and necessary documents to the applicant so as to enable him to defend the pending trial against him. It is clarified that before submitting the application for demanding required and necessary documents, the applicant or his counsel is permitted to inspect the documents lying in 42 gunny bags which are in the custody of respondent No.1. After the receipt of the application from the applicant, the respondent No.1 shall provide the certified copies of the documents asked for, which are lying in 42 gunny bags, to the applicant within a period of 4 weeks. It is further clarified that this order is passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case and with a view to see that the fair opportunity is provided to the applicant to defend his case before the learned Sessions Court in the pending trial and this order shall not be treated as precedent.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Summary

Issues:
- Direction to provide copy of documents in 42 gunny bags seized by police and now with Income-tax Department

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of providing a copy of documents in 42 gunny bags seized by the police and now in the custody of the Income-tax Department. The applicant sought direction for the respondent No.1 to provide these documents for the defense in a pending trial. The applicant referred to a previous court order and highlighted the respondent's commitment to supply the documents as per the law. Despite the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court, the documents were not provided, leading to the current application.

The applicant's counsel argued that the necessary documents are crucial for the defense in the pending trial. Respondent No.1, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt, assured that the required documents would be provided upon payment of fees. The court, after hearing both parties and examining the evidence, concluded that the respondent No.1 must supply the copy of documents in the 42 gunny bags to the applicant on payment of requisite fees. The court allowed the applicant or their counsel to inspect the documents before submitting an application for copies. Respondent No.1 was directed to provide the certified copies within four weeks of receiving the application.

Furthermore, the court clarified that the order was specific to the present case and aimed to ensure a fair opportunity for the applicant to defend in the pending trial. The judgment emphasized that it should not be considered a precedent. With these directions and observations, the application was disposed of, and the rule was made absolute to the specified extent.