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

2021 Supreme(Del) 1501

MUKTA GUPTA
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Inx Media Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Anupam S Sharma, Advocate, Sudha Rani Ralangi, Advocate, Prakarsh Airan, Advocate, Harpreet Kalsi, Advocate, Shailesh Poria, Advocate, Sidharth Luthra, Advocate, Akshat Gupta, Advocate, Pankaj Singhal, Advocate, Shubhangi Jain, Advocate, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Nitin Saluja, Advocate, Vikalp Sharma, Advocate, Akshat Sharma, Advocate, Vikas Pathak, Advocate, Kumar Vaibhaw, Advocate, Himanshu Gupta, Advocate, Mohd. Ashaad, Advocate, Aditya Wadhwa, Advocate, Sougat Mishra, Advocate, Ayush Shrivastava, Advocate, Sidharth Aggarwal, Advocate, Varaz Maqbool, Advocate, Abhinav Sekhri, Advocate, Chandan Kumar, Advocate, Chaitanya Sundariyal, Advocate, Vikas Arora, Advocate, Radhika Arora, Advocate, Sandeep Kapur, Advocate, Mridul Yadav, Advocate, Aashneet Singh Anand, Advocate, N. Hariharan, Advocate, Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Advocate, Ayush Aggarwal, Advocate, Siddharth S. Yadav, Advocate, Varun Deswal, Advocate, Akriti G. Mittal, Advocate, Harsh Mittal, Advocate

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

      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