Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
Vipul Kaushik - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6005 of 2023
Decided on : 02-02-2024
Key Points: - The accused must specify required documents for defense; vague applications do not warrant disclosure of all materials (!) (!) (!) . - The court ensures all material necessary for a just trial is produced, but the petitioner failed to specify required documents (!) (!) . - Documents and statements on which the charge-sheet was filed have already been produced and furnished to the accused (!) (!) . - The petitioner failed to detail out any list of documents required for defense, making the application vague and baseless (!) (!) . - Non-disclosure of additional documents relating to unrelated bank accounts does not prejudice the petitioner’s defense (!) (!) . - The application filed appears to delay the criminal trial and lacks bona fide intention (!) (!) . - The trial court correctly rejected the vague application under Sections 91 and 207 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) . - The court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting the petitioner’s application (!) . - The accused had already been provided copies of all relevant documents and statements (!) (!) . - The petition is dismissed, and the trial may proceed in accordance with law (!) (!) .
ORDER :
Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Spl. PP for CBI so also perused the record placed before this Court including the order impugned herein dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) No.2, Jaipur Metro-I in criminal case No.1/2016 titled as CBI v. Bharat Bomb and Ors.
2. Vide order impugned, application dated 02.06.2023 filed by the petitioner accused invoking powers of the Court under Section 91 and 207 Cr.p.C, seeking directions against CBI/prosecution to disclose all the relied/unrelied documents collected by the Investigation Officer (IO) and to produce/supply statements of all persons recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in the present matter has been rejected.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on written compliant of Shri. C. Sridhran, DGM, Syndicate Bank, Field General Manager's Office, New Delhi in respect of fraud allegedly committed by bank officials and a group of customers by resorting to discounting of fake/forged cheques, fake bills and arranging over-draft limit against the non-existent LIC policies aggregating to Rs. 1055.78/- crores in the two branches of Syndicate Bank at Jaipur and Udaipur, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) proceeded investigation and after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed on 14.06.2016 against as many as five persons including accused petitioner, they are namely (1) Bharat Bomb, (2) Shankar Lal Khandelwal, (3) Vipul Kaushik (petitioner herein), (4) Santosh Kumar Gupta and (5) Smt. Usha Gupta, for offences under Section 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 IPC and section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other substantive offences. It has been stated that charges for such offences have been framed against all above named five charge-sheeted accused persons on 30.11.2018 and at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence, after recording statements of about 16 witnesses, one of the accused i.e. petitioner Vipul Kaushik filed an application dated 02.06.2023 relying upon Rule 4 of the Draft Criminal Rules of Practice, 2021 (for short "Rules of 2021") promulgated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of RE: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in [(2021) 10 SCC 598], so also resorting to the provision of Sections 91 and 207 of Cr.P.C., seeking disclosure/production of all relied/unrelied documents and statements of all persons, collected by the I.O. during investigation.
4. This application filed by and on behalf of petitioner accused was replied by the CBI on 14.07.2023 stating inter alia that documents and statements related to the charge-sheet filed against five accused persons have already been placed on the record of the Court and copies thereof, have also been furnished to accused persons including the petitioner. It was disclosed that during the investigation, role of other persons other than the five named accused persons in the FIR, has surfaced and there is involvement of about more than four hundred bank accounts, hence, further investigation in the FIR is on-going and pending against suspect firms, companies, proprietorship and there Directors, partners, proprietors, etc. in which the bank funds were diverted/siphoned off. It was submitted by the CBI that in view of on-going further investigation in the matter, the list of unrelied documents/all witnesses is not possible to be provided/produced before the Court at this stage.
It appears that during pendency of such application, seeking disclosure of all relied/unrelied documents and for production of statements of all persons recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, an another application was also moved by the petitioner seeking stay of trial and not to progress with criminal trial until the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is decided and documents sought to be proceeded, be disclosed/produced by CBI. It appears that lear
The court upheld that the accused must specify required documents for defense; vague applications do not warrant disclosure of all materials.
Accused must be provided access to all documents necessary for defense to ensure a fair trial.
Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.
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....
Prosecution must supply list of unrelied-upon documents to accused under Section 91 CrPC for fair trial, even pre-defence stage if necessary, overriding confidentiality claims for public documents.
The prosecution must disclose all documents, including those not relied upon, to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.
The accused's right to a fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution to make fair disclosure, and the accused's entitlement to relevant documents collected during the investigation were central leg....
The judgment emphasizes mandatory compliance with Supreme Court-established guidelines regarding document disclosure in criminal trials to ensure fair trial rights.
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
