Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
SAMEER SANDHIR – Petitioner
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
CRL.M.C.1030 of 2016 & CRL.M.A.No.11917 of 2016
Decided On : 26-04-2017
For the Petitioner Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ankur Chawla, Ms.Kanika Singh, Ms. Heena Khan, Mr. Akshay Sahni, Mr. Anupam Prasad and Mr. Ali Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Narender Mann, SPP with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate.
Important Point—There is no express provision debarring evidence to be produced at a certain stage.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 173(5)(8) and 482—Production of CDs—There is no express provision debarring evidence to be produced at a certain stage—For omission / mistake / inadvertence / negligence for not placing on record CDs at relevant time, CBI cannot be prevented to seek permission of Court to file these CDs on record subsequent to filing of charge-sheet / supplementary charge-sheet during trial—There was no inordinate delay to bring on record CDs allegedly containing vital conversations to have an impact on trial—Investigating agency must be given fair opportunity to prove its case on merits and on technicalities, crucial piece of evidence cannot be prevented to be brought on record. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 173(5)(8) and 482—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 65B—Production of CDs—Trial for offences under PC Act—No prejudice would be caused to petitioner if CDs are permitted to be brought on record—Since these documents are supported by required certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, their authenticity cannot be suspected at this stage—There is sufficient material on record to infer that both these CDs are relevant and can be produced as evidence during trial as per law— No illegality or material irregularity in impugned order—Petition dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18 to 23)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
There is no specific provision in the criminal procedure code that explicitly prohibits the production of evidence at a particular stage of the trial (!) .
-
An investigating agency is permitted to file additional evidence, such as CDs, even after the initial filing of the charge-sheet or supplementary charge-sheet, provided there is no inordinate delay and the evidence was in existence prior to the filing (!) (!) .
-
The absence of such evidence at the time of filing the charge-sheet does not automatically prejudice the accused, especially when the evidence is relevant, supported by proper certificates, and was available during investigation (!) (!) .
-
The prosecution's failure to include certain evidence initially does not bar its subsequent admission during the trial, as the primary goal is to discover the truth, and the law favors the inclusion of relevant evidence to achieve that objective (!) (!) .
-
The admissibility of evidence like CDs depends on their relevance, authenticity, and compliance with legal requirements such as certification under relevant evidence laws; these can be challenged during the trial and are not necessarily barred due to procedural lapses at an earlier stage (!) (!) (!) .
-
The trial court has the discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence, and procedural irregularities or omissions at earlier stages do not automatically invalidate evidence if it is relevant and properly supported (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the law emphasizes that evidence can be filed or produced at different stages of the trial, provided the process is fair, and no prejudice is caused to the accused, and the courts should facilitate the discovery of truth over rigid procedural technicalities (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or further assistance.
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 06.02.2016 of learned Spl. Judge, CBI whereby application under Section 173(5)(8) Cr.P.C. filed by CBI to place on record CDs (M-137/13 & M-170/13) (hereinafter referred as ‘CDs’) was allowed. Petition is contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and have examined the file.
3. Admitted position is that the petitioner among others is facing trial in case RC No.217/2013/A0004 registered under various offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet have since been filed before the Trial Court. By an order dated 06.03.2014, charge has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner and others. Certain witnesses have also been examined on behalf of CBI. On 16.09.2014 at the time of examination of PW-3 (Mr.Uday Suryavanshi) objection was raised to the playing of CDs on the ground that these were never relied upon or filed in the Court. CBI sought permission to file an appropriate application. On 17.09.2014, CBI filed an application seeking permission for preparing copies of sealed CDs; it was allowed by an order dated 27.09.2014. The order was challenged in Crl.M.C.No.4739/2014 before this Court. By an order dated 12.05.2015, the petition was allowed setting aside the order dated 27.09.2014 directing the Trial Court to permit CBI to file an appropriate application to bring on record the sealed CDs and after satisfying itself, as to whether those CDs could be brought on record during the recording of evidence and under what provisions of law. It was further directed that the said application be dealt with promptly while considering the admissibility and authenticity of the sealed CDs.
4. CBI filed an application to place on record the CDs which was contested. On 13.10.2015, the Trial Court ordered to play the said CDs in the Court to ascertain their authenticity. The application filed by the petitioner to oppose playing of the CDs was dismissed by an order dated 31.10.2015. One CD was played and heard in the Court. It remained incomplete due to paucity of time.
5. Orders dated 13.10.2015 and 31.10.2015 were challenged in Crl.M.C. 4605/2015. The said petition was allowed setting aside the orders holding that the Trial Court had to first decide CBI’s application and to satisfy as to whether CDs in question were to be brought on record and under what provisions of law.
6. Undisputedly, both these CDs were not filed along with charge-sheet/supplementary charge-sheet. CBI did not place reliance on these CDs; copies of the CDs were not made available to the petitioner. When the examination of PW-3 was underway, on 16.09.2014 an attempt was made to bring on record both the CDs which was opposed by the accused persons. By an order dated 27.09.2014 (Annexure ‘P/14’) application filed by CBI to bring on record these CDs was allowed. Copies of the CDs were ordered to be prepared from CFSL to supply it to the accused persons along with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. This Court in Crl.M.C. 4739/2014, by an order dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure ‘P/17’) set aside the said order with directions to the Trial Court to permit CBI to file an appropriate application for bringing on record the CDs and after satisfying itself, as to whether the CDs could be brought on record during recording of the evidence and under what provisions of law. The said application was directed to be promptly dealt with while considering the admissibility and authenticity of the two sealed CDs. By an order dated 06.11.2015 in Crl.M.C.No.4605/2015, orders dated 13.10.2015 and 31.10.2015 of learned Special Judge were set aside. Directions were given to the Trial Court to decide the application moved by CBI expeditiously and to pass a fresh order after considering the su
