SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 2201

P.S.TEJI
TARUN TYAGI – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Pahwa, Adv. with Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl.P.P. for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant, Adv. & Mr. Gaurav Wadhwa, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. The explanation regarding the right to a fair trial overriding concerns about misuse of sensitive proprietary information is contained in the following paragraphs:

The paragraph explaining that procedural safeguards and measures can be adopted to protect sensitive information without compromising the accused’s rights is (!) .

The paragraph stating that the right to a fair trial encompasses access to evidence, including confidential or proprietary information, and that this right overrides the prosecution’s apprehensions if safeguards are in place, is (!) .


JUDGMENT :

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), has been preferred by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 6th November, 2013 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and further seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to supply a copy of all such documents relied upon by the prosecution in the case arising out of FIR RC No.6/2007/EOU-IX, New Delhi registered under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 & Sections 63 & 63-B read with Sections 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

2. A thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case is that the petitioner was an employee of the complainant company i.e. M/s Unistal Systems Pvt. Ltd. during the year 2003 to April, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant company entered into an agreement with the petitioner whereby the petitioner was entitled to use the products for writing a book on data recovery and for this purpose, the complainant company had financed the petitioner. The complainant company also permitted the petitioner to distribute free of cost the












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top