IMPORTANT POINT
One of the established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the scheme contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 173(5)-Applications filed by appellant for certified copies or in the alternative for inspection of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents in a trial pending against her-Rejection of-Challenge thereagainst-Two Orders passed by High Court upholding rejection of said applications-Appeals-No dispute that appellant arrayed as second accused and Smt. J. Jayalalitha, then Chief Minister of the State was arrayed as first accused in the case for commission of offences under Section 120B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of P of C Act, 1988 -Though prosecution tried to cast some cloud on issue as to whether unmarked and unexhibited documents were a part of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., no denial by prosecution that said unmarked and unexhibited documents were presently in the custody of Court- Besides, accused in her application had furnished specific details of said documents -Hence a perception of possible prejudice to appellant , if the documents or at least an inspection thereof was denied, loomed large-Directions issued allowing an inspection of unmarked and unexhibited documents by appellant to balance the need to bring prosecution in the instant case to its earliest conclusion and at the same time to protect and preserve the right of the accused to a fair trial -Appeals disposed off (Paras 14, 15, 20 , 21)
        Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 173(5)-Scope and ambit of-Said provision makes it incumbent on investigating agency to forward/transmit to concerned court all documents/statements etc. on which prosecution proposes to rely in the course of the trial- Section 173(5), however, is subject to provisions of Section 173(6) which confers a power on the investigating officer to request the concerned court to exclude any part of statement or documents forwarded under Section 173(5) from copies to be granted to accused (Para 11)
       Facts of the Case :
        Two orders of the High Court upholding the rejection of two separate applications made by the appellant herein for certified copies or in the alternative for inspection of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents in a trial pending against her is the subject matter of challenge in the appeals under consideration.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Supreme Court held that a perception of possible prejudice to appellant , if the documents or at least an inspection thereof was denied, loomed large Hence Directions were issued allowing an inspection of unmarked and unexhibited documents by appellant to balance the need to bring prosecution in the instant case to its earliest conclusion and at the same time to protect and preserve the right of the accused to a fair trial.
       Result : Appeals disposed of

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Two orders of the High Court of Karnataka dated 16th April, 2012 and 28th May, 2012 upholding the rejection of two separate applications made by the appellant herein for certified copies or in the alternative for inspection of certain unmarked and unexhibited documents in a trial pending against her is the subject matter of challenge in the appeals under consideration. The facts leading to the applications filed before the learned trial court and the grounds of rejection being largely similar both the appeals were heard analogously.

3. A convenient staring point for the required narration of the relevant facts could be the order of this court dated th November, 2003 passed in Transfer Petitions (Criminal) Nos.77-78 of 2003 (K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police and others, (2004) 3 SCC 767. By the aforesaid order dated 18th November, 2003 this court had transferred the proceeding in CC No.7 of 1997 from the court of the 11th Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1), Chennai to a Special Court in Bangalore to be constituted by the State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant before us is the second accused in the aforesaid transferred proceeding which has been registered as Spl. CC.No.208 of 2004 and is presently pending in the court of the 36th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore. It may also be noticed that along with CC No.7 of 1997 there was another proceeding i.e. CC No. 2 of 2001 pending in the file of the same court, i.e. 11th Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1), Chennai against the same accused which was also transferred to the Special Court in Bangalore by the order dated 18th November, 2003. However, the said proceeding would not be of any relevance at the present stage as the chargesheet in the said case has since been withdrawn and the matter stands closed.

4. The transfer of CC No.7 of 1997 and CC No. 2 of 2001 from the court at Chennai was sought by one Shri K. Anbazhagan, General Secretary of DMK Party, a recognised political party in the State of Tamil Nadu. In case No.CC No. 7 of 1997 then pending in the competent court at Chennai allegations of commission of offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were made against the present appellant who was arrayed as the second accused in the case and also against one Smt. J. Jayalalitha, who was arrayed as the first accused. There were two other accused in the aforesaid proceeding, namely, accused No.3 and 4, who are relatives of the present appellant, i.e., accused No.2. The offences alleged arose out of certain acts and omissions attributed to the accused during the period 1991-1996 when the first accused was the Chief Minister of the State which office she had demitted after the General Elections held in the State in 1996. According to the petitioner in the Transfer Petitions, chargesheet in the aforesaid case had been filed on 21st October, 1997 and more than 250 prosecution witnesses had been examined by the end of August, 2000. The accused No.1, once again, became the Chief Minister of the State following the General Elections held in May, 2001. Though the appointment of the first accused as the Chief Minister was nullified by this court and the accused ceased to be Chief Minister, w.e.f., 21st September, 2001, she was elected to the State assembly in a by-election held on 21st February, 2002 and was, once again, sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State on 2nd March, 2002. It was stated in the Transfer Petitions that, thereafter, the course of trial of CC.No.7 of 1997 took a peculiar turn and a large number of prosecution witnesses (76 in all) who had been discharged were recalled without any objection of the public prosecutor. 64 of such witnesses resiled from their earlier versions tendered in court. It was also alleg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 667

IMPORTANT POINT One of the established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the scheme contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
One of the established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the scheme contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure.