Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
Satyendar Kumar Jain - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2422 of 2020, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17132 of 2020, 2963 of 2021
Decided On : 26-04-2022
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure Code - Article 227 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Indian Penal Code - [Section 482] - [Criminal Procedure Code] - [Article 227] - [Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the production of documents found in a locker at the stage of charge, and challenged the validity of the order of sanction for prosecution granted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defense cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge to avoid a mini trial, and the documents sought to be relied upon by the accused persons could only be considered after trial. The court also concluded that the question of the validity of the sanction order can be considered at the appropriate stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the supply of documents found in the locker and the consideration of the validity of the order of sanction for prosecution at the stage of charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the defense cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge, and the documents sought to be relied upon by the accused persons could only be considered after trial. Additionally, the court concluded that the question of the validity of the sanction order can be considered at the appropriate stage.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that no grounds were made out to allow the prayers sought in the petition.
JUDGMENT
asha Menon, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') read with article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 20th November, 2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC act) (CBI)-24 (MP/MLa Cases), Rouse avenue District Courts, New Delhi.
2. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it was obligatory for the prosecution and the investigating agency to bring before the court all the material they had collected during investigations and the same had to be also furnished to the accused persons, be the material in favour of the prosecution or the defence. The second submission made was that unless and until all material collected by CBI was not placed before the Sanctioning authority, the sanction for prosecution was itself invalid.
3. In the present case, the contention is that in the course of investigations, the CBI had searched the locker bearing No.152, which had belonged to the respondent No.4/Vaibhav Jain, maintained at the HDFC Bank, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. a Locker Operation Memo dated 13th april, 2018 was also prepared and it was found that there were various original sale-deeds of land purchased by the three companies held by the petitioner, namely, (i) M/s. akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Paryas Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) M/s. Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd.. The copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28th March, 2010, between the petitioner and the respondents No.3 & 5, was also found. The third document was a list of cash transactions that took place between 24th September, 2010 and 1st March, 2016. according to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, several other relevant documents, including currency notes, were also found in the said locker.
4. It was submitted that the respondent No.4 had filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking the summoning of the said Locker Operation Memo along with the documents mentioned therein. When such an application was moved, the petitioner realized that such a document existed. Therefore, he too filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the Locker Operation Memo dated 13th april, 2018, along with the documents and articles mentioned therein, for consideration at the stage of arguments on charge.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner urged that at the time of framing of charge, the petitioner had a right to show that he was not involved in any offence and if these documents, which included original sale-deeds, were produced before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner would be able to justify his plea for a discharge. But, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dismissed his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C..
6. With reference to the stand taken by the respondent/CBI that these documents were not in their custody, as these were not seized, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on a communication i.e., a letter dated 4th July, 2019, addressed to the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Delhi, sent by respondent No.4, placed at page No.174 of the e-file, which had the following noting: -
'Locker No.152 is ceased (sic) with HDFC Bank Chandni Chowk branch due to received notice from CBI.'
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that clearly the Bank had not allowed the respondent No.4 to operate his locker or his account because of directions of the CBI. In other words, even if the physical custody of the documents was not with the CBI, in effect they were in the custody of the CBI and it was incumbent upon the CBI to supply the same to the petitioner.
8. With regard to the sanction, it was the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that had these documents, namely, the Locker Operation Memo and the documents found in the locker, been placed before the Sanctioning authority, the material would have impacted the exercise of discret
The defense cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge to avoid a mini trial, and the documents sought to be relied upon by the accused persons could only be considered after trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's entitlement to seek production of documents under Sec. 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defense, and the expressio....
Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.
Accused must be provided access to all documents necessary for defense to ensure a fair trial.
At the pre-charge stage, the accused is not entitled to the supply of unrelied upon documents, but may request a list of such documents if required.
Object of Section 294 of Code is to accelerate pace of trial by avoiding time being wasted by parties in recording unnecessary evidence.
At the discharge stage, an accused cannot seek production of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, as the right to produce evidence arises only during the trial phase.
The accused does not have the right to invoke Sec. 91 of the CrPC for document production at the stage of framing charges; such rights are reserved for the defense stage of the trial.
The main legal point established is that the term 'Court' in Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not limited to the Court where the FIR was filed, and the power to seize documents for investigation purposes extend....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
