JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. - By this petition, the CBI challenges the impugned order dated 5th March, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge on the applications filed by the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. seeking supply of documents.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge noted that the documents sought through these applications were broadly:

a. Deficient documents

b. Dim or illegible copies

c. Incomplete or torn documents

d. Part of documents which have been filed in Court by CBI

e. The documents though seized or collected during investigation, but not filed in Court

f. The documents referred to or reflected in correspondence of CBI and other authorities or in statements of witnesses

3. During the course of hearing before the learned Trial Court, no dispute was raised by the CBI in respect of the documents mentioned at serial Nos. (a), (b) and (c), however documents mentioned at serial Nos.(d), (e) and (f) were disputed and the stand of the CBI was that since the same were not relied upon by the CBI in the charge-sheet, the documents mentioned in the category (d), (e) and (f) cannot be given to the accused.

4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Special Judge directed CBI to supply all the pages/parts thereof or the entire documents in relation to the documents few pages whereof or parts of the said documents are relied upon and filed by the CBI i.e. the documents at serial No. '(d)'. As regards the documents at serial nos. '(e)' and '(f)' are concerned, referring to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court as also relying upon Clause 12.32 of the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 which lays down the procedure of inspection of documents kept in the Malkhana on Court orders, the learned Special Judge permitted inspection of records of the case lying in Malkhana of CBI during the working hours of the CBI Malkhana as per provisions contained in Clause 12.32 of CBI (Crime) Manual and other clauses of the Manual and the policy, guidelines or rules framed on this issue, if any, to the learned defence counsel or their associates as per the requirements by way of a written authorization. The concerned SP was also directed to give necessary directions to the Officer Incharge of CBI Malkhana to depute requisite and responsible staff to facilitate the inspection under the direct supervision of some responsible officer. The HIO or IO of the case was also directed to be present at the time of said inspection so as to facilitate in finding the nature and relevance of such documents. The Court also directed that the security of records had to be maintained and any tampering thereof shall have to be ruled out and the inspection be completed within 10-15 days.

5. Further, to rule out the apprehension of CBI that inspection of documents if permitted may hamper further investigation, the learned Special Judge also clarified that this permission of inspection of records lying in the Malkhana granted by the Court shall not be in respect of those documents in relation to which the investigation by the CBI is still pending, as has also been indicated in the charge sheet itself and even witnesses related to such documents have yet not been examined. It was also noted that the issue whether or not any document supplied to the accused persons as a result of this order is of sterling quality or can be considered at the stage of charge for uprooting the case of prosecution is kept open to be considered at the stage of framing of charge itself.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the CBI is that the respondent cannot seek production of the documents at this stage as any document which is required to be produced under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be utilized by the accused at the stage of defence only to prove his innocence, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in (2005) 1 SCC 568 State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. Even in the decision relied upon by the learned Special Judge reported as AIR 2017 SC 5846 Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin