The duty of the investigating agency is to do free and fair investigation by bringing to the notice of the Court all the evidences collected during the investigation without pick and choose. The accused has been provided with a definite right under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the constitutional mandate to face the charge against him by a fair investigation and trial.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Present petition has been filed under sections 482/483 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by learned ASJ (MPs/MLAs cases), Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi in CR.REV. No.7/2019 titled as Manish Sisodia & Anr. vs. State & Anr. whereby the said Court did not allow to supply some crucial documents as prayed/required in the application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. filed on the behalf of the accused in this case, without following the procedure as prescribed under Cr.P.C.

2. The chargesheet in FIR No 54/2018 under section 186/323/353/332/ 342/149/504/506-II/120-B/109/114/34 IPC filed on 13.08.2020 before learned ACMM, Patiala House Court against the petitioners and named as accused. The Petitioner No.1 herein filed an application under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code for supply of certain deficient documents inter alia including the copy of the statement of one witness Sh.V.K. Jain recorded on 21.02.2018 and audio/video recording of the examination of the petitioners. Barring the supply of legible copy of the documents mentioned in the application learned ACMM declined the supply of the statement dated 21.02.2020 of the V.K Jain and held that as per prosecution no statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded of Mr.V.K. Jain on 21.02.2020 and therefore same cannot be supplied.

3. Being aggrieved, preferred the Revision Petition No. 7/2019 before the Ld. ASJ (MPs/MLAs), Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. However, on 24.07.2019, the same was disposed of by stating that "since it is a record of oral examination of Sh. V. K. Jain by the IO and is noted in the case diary, this report does not take the place of statement under Section 161 Cr.PC and is therefore, not to be given to the accused. However, the same may be used during the trial as an aid to the trial by the learned Trial Court and also as per provisions of subsection 3 of Section 172 Cr.PC. So far as the second prayer of the revisionists that they be provided audio-video recording of their interrogation is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for Additional CP/EOW is that there is no provision under which the revisionists can demand their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. He submits that the relevant date is when the charge-sheet is filed and not when the statement is recorded. He submitted that on the date of filing of charge-sheet, the revisionists were accused and not witnesses. He submitted that nothing has been discovered pursuant to their statements. There is no information relating to the fact thereby discovered which may be proved. He submits that the revisionists already know what statement they had made to the Investigating Officer and they cannot confront any prosecution witness with their statements. The learned counsel for the revisionists could not show any provision of law entitling the revisionists with their statements recorded during interrogation. Therefore, the prayer of the revisionists for supplying them a copy of audio-video recording of their statements during interrogation is declined. The revisionists, however may call for these recordings during trial subject to the learned Trial Court considering its production necessary or desirable for the purposes of trial. "

4. Mr.Hariharan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that although in the impugned order the learned ASJ noted in para 28 "that this court had called for the case diary. A perusal the same shows that Sh. V. K. Jain had joined investigation at PS Civil Lines on 21.02.2018 and he was ''examined in-depth'' and a ''report'' was prepared contents of which are the same as the contents of the document referred by the revisionists as statement of Sh. V. K. Jain." Learned senior advocate argued that the prosecution has withheld the statement of witness Mr. V K Jain recorded on 21.02.2018 because it did not suit the prosec