Back
Judges : M.B.SHAH,BRIJESH KUMAR,D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Central Bureau of Investigation - Appellant
Versus
R.S.Pai - Respondent
Case No : Crl.A. No. 1045 of 2000
Decided On : 04/03/2002
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner:-- For the Respondent:---
The case involves the question of whether the prosecution can produce additional documents gathered during investigation after submitting the charge-sheet under S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court held that while the investigating officer is required to produce all relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet, the additional documents can be produced subsequently with the permission of the court. The word 'shall' in sub-s. (5) of S.173 was interpreted as directory rather than mandatory. The court also emphasized that further investigation is not precluded even after the charge-sheet is submitted, and allowing the prosecution to produce additional documents would not prejudice the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves allegations of conspiracy and fraudulent activities by bank officials and private parties, resulting in wrongful gain to the private parties and corresponding loss to the bank. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet against the respondents, who subsequently filed a discharge application. The CBI sought production of additional documents gathered during the investigation, which was rejected by the Special Court, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Court's rejection of the application for production of additional documents was not justified, as the investigating officer can produce additional documents with the permission of the court, and further investigation is not precluded even after the charge-sheet is submitted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution can produce additional documents gathered during the investigation after submitting the charge-sheet under S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of S.173 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the word 'shall' in sub-s. (5) should be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory, and that further investigation is not precluded even after the charge-sheet is submitted.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order passed by the special court were set aside. The application filed by the appellant for production of additional documents was allowed, and the Special Court was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
1. Short question is - whether prosecution can produce additional documents which are gathered during investigation, after submitting charge-sheet under S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
2. The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) at Bombay by judgment and order dated 26th July 2000, rejected miscellaneous application No. 338 of 2000 in special case No. 3 of 1997 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for production of additional documents in a case where application for discharging the respondents was filed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the CBI has preferred this appeal.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that- during the period 2.4.1992 to 20.5.1992, the FIM Division, Mumbai of Syndicate Bank received funds aggregating to Rs. 132.23 crores for portfolio management from Oil Industries Development Board, New Delhi. It was alleged that R. Sundaresan, the then Divisional Manager of the Bank and other bank officials conspired during the abovesaid period at Mumbai along with Directors and office bearers of M/ s. Fair Growth Investments Ltd. and M/ s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. and by dishonestly and fraudulently abusing their position as a public servant, causing wrongful gain to private parties and corresponding loss to the Syndicate Bank. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs. 90.58 crores was invested for the purpose of shares/ debentures from M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. and others without specific authorization from the head office of the Bank and without adhering to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the SEBI.On 2.6.1993, on the written complaint of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, case No. RC 1 (BSC)/93-Mum. was registered under S.120-B read with S.420 IPC and S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against R. Sundaresan, Divisional Manager of Syndicate Bank and K.R.N. Shenoy, Managing Director of M/s. Fair Growth Investments Ltd. After investigation, chargesheet was filed by the CBI in the Special Court in special case No. 3/97 at Bombay against respondent Nos.1 and 2. On 27.1.2000, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed discharge application bearing Misc. Application No. 51 of 2000 and Misc. Application No. 168 of 2000 before the Special Court. Pending hearing those applications, appellant sought production of additional documents, which were gathered during investigation but were not produced before the Court. That application was rejected. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the special judge is on the face of it illegal and contrary to the provisions of S.173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is his contention that normally the investigating officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report but the investigating officer committed mistake in not producing certain documents as in his opinion, those documents were not relevant. Thereafter, it was found that those documents were relevant so as to connect the accused with the crime. It is submitted that arguments for framing of the charge were not finally heard and therefore, there was no justifiable reason to reject the application for production of additional documents.
5. As against this Mr. P.V. Adhyaru, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that under S.173(5) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has to produce all the documents at the time of submitting the report. Therefore, the order passed by the Special Court cannot be said, in any way, to be illegal or erroneous.
6. For appreciating the rival contentions, we would first refer to the relevant part of S.173 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"173. Report of Police Officer on completion of investigation -
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the offic
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
