R.N. Verma, J.

1. Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 19.03.2016 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII-cum- Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in RC 20(A)/2009-R, whereby and where under the application field by the petitioner on different dates with prayer to direct the C.B.I to supply all the deficit documents i.e. D-2 to D-17 and the statements of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 12, which are not readable, has been rejected.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant fact which is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, in short, is that at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation ( in short “C.B.I.”), an F.I.R. was lodged under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 13(2) read with 13(1))D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with allegation that one Basudeo Tiwary and three Executive Engineers, Road Construction Department, Chaibasa during the period 2006-07 entered into criminal conspiracy with M/s Nav Nirman Builders, Jamshedpur and unknown persons and pursuance thereof, the said firm submitted false/bogus invoices showing procurement of Bitumen for execution of the contractual work awarded in its favour, which caused wrongful gain to the contractor and wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand to the tune of Rs.89,68,966/-.

3. After investigation, the C.B.I submitted the charge-sheet under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act only and other sections in which F.I.R was lodged were dropped. In the charge-sheet this petitioner, who was Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Division, Seraikela, Kharawan was also shown as an accused. With the charge-sheet, a list of witnesses and a long list of documents were enclosed as memo of evidence, which were collected and forwarded to the Special Judge within the meaning of Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short “the Code”) without there being any exception as contemplated under section 173(6) for which no application was filed by the Investigation Officer before the Court.

4. It appears from the report that on different dates like 08.08.2013, 05.05.2014, 04.08.2014, 14.07.2015, 07.09.2015, 14.09.2015, 16.10.2015 and 05.01.2016 petitions and objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner with prayer to supply those documents, which were the part of the police papers as provided under section 173 of the Code and the C.B.I by filing rejoinder to the above petitions prayed to the court to direct the accused-petitioner to return all those documents for identifying the missing/illegible papers of documents. Accordingly, direction was given and the petitioner returned all those documents but when those documents were supplied to the petitioner, again objection was filed. Where after, the C.B.I also filed rejoinder and took the plea that those deficit documents demanded by the accused-petitioner are of no help to the petitioner as C.B.I will not rely on those documents. The C.B.I also took the plea that certain documents are faintly printed/carbon copy/hand written, so it is difficult to supply photocopies of those documents and by non-supplying, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner-accused. It was also stated by the C.B.I in its rejoinder that the documents which have not been given to the accused, are the documents upon which C.B.I will not rely, so C.B.I is not bound to supply copies of those documents. It further appears that on 07.09.2015, petitioner submitted a tabular chart (document wise) and prayed to supply those incomplete selective part of the documents. But the C.B.I in its rejoinder stated that accused-petitioner is intentionally delaying the trial of cases since last two years and so the demand of documents not relied on, cannot be supplied to t