IMPORTANT POINT
Non-supply of the complaint or contents of information passed on to the Anti Corruption Bureau to the the accused persons do not, at all, violate the principle of fair trial.

ORDER

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the prosecution is bound to produce the original complaint/application filed by an unknown person, based on which an inquiry was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau.

2. The petitioner (first accused) along with three others moved an application before the Special Sessions Court of Greater Bombay for a direction to the prosecution/Anti Corruption Bureau to produce the original complaint/application filed by an unknown person, leading the accused person to be charge-sheeted for offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner submitted that on the basis of that complaint an open enquiry No.31/198 was conducted and following that Special Case No.39 of 1999 was registered against the accused person. It was brought out that one complaint/application was received by the Anti Corruption Bureau and copy of that application was forwarded to the Home Department. PW1 had deposed that he could not disclose the name of the person who had sent that complaint. It was mentioned therein that the first accused was having huge movable and immovable property at Bombay, Aurangabad and Nagpur. The first accused wanted a copy of the original complaint to be produced before the court as well as the name of the person who had sent that complaint.

4. The prosecution resisted the application preferred by the first accused contending that the prosecution would not be relying upon the complaint/application sought to be produced. On the other hand, discreet enquiry was conducted based on that application and after collecting sufficient materials, the prosecution lodged first information report and thereafter investigation was carried out. Further it was pointed out that prosecution cannot examine the person who gave the complaint/application, otherwise no person would pass on any secret information to the Anti Corruption Bureau.

5. The Special Judge, Prevention of Anti Corruption, found no basis in the application calling upon for the production of the original complaint as well as the name of the complainant, who had sent the complaint and rejected the application vide his order dated 29.01.2011, which was confirmed by the High Court on 25.02.2013, against which this special leave petition has been preferred.

6. Shri Amol Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not interested in getting the name of the person who made the complaint, but wanted to know the contents of the complaint, which cannot be said to be secret information. Learned counsel also submitted that prosecution cannot exercise privilege of non-disclosure of the information they have received, which lead to the investigation.

Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in V.K. Sasikala v. State Represented by Superintendent of Police (2012) 9 SCC 771 and submitted that when accused applies for inspection of documents in the custody of the court, even at the advanced stage of the trial, the court is duty bound to supply those documents and the same reasoning will apply in the case of prosecution as well.

7. Since the entire emphasis of the counsel for the petitioner is on V.K.Sasikala case (supra), before embarking on the discussion on the issue involved, we would first like to discuss the ratio of V.K.Sasikala case(supra). In that case, the appellant -accused had demanded copies/inspection of those documents which were not relied on by the prosecution but at the same time, these documents formed part of police report and were in the custody of the Court. Demand was made after the prosecution had led the evidence and at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning. In this backdrop, the question that fell for determination was as to whether the accused would be entitled to the documents which were part of police report under Section 173(5) o