The prosecution must disclose all documents, including those not relied upon, to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

(Kuldeep Tiwari, J.)

The instant petition cast under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. aims at securing the hereinafter extracted relief(s):-

“(i) Set aside the order dated 04.08.2021 (Annexures P-1), whereby, the learned Special Judge under PML Act, Haryana at Panchkula, has dismissed the petitioner’s application, filed in Case No. PC/01/2021 (IA-3/21), thereby seeking inspection of documents, which became seized by the C.B.I., but neither became relied upon nor placed on record before the Court concerned;

(ii) Set aside the order dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Haryana at Panchkula, has dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., filed in Case No. PC/01/2021 (IA04/2021), thereby praying for him being supplied the deficient copies of documents.”

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

2. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is embedded in the notion that, the documents, which although became seized by the C.B.I. during the course of investigation, however, did not become relied upon or placed on record, carry dire significance for the petitioner to prove his innocence, besides them being essential for a proper and just trial. He argues that the prosecution agency is duty bound to furnish all the relied/non-relied upon documents, so that the accused can effectively defend himself/herself. To garner stregnth to this argument, he makes dependence upon the verdict drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No.1 of 2017, Decided on: 20.04.2021, titled as “In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials V/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.”.

3. Another argument framed by the learned counsel for the petitioner ensues from the indefeasible right of the petitioner to a fair trial becoming infringed, on account of non-compliance of the mandate enclosed in Section 207 of the Cr.P.C, inasmuch as, Section 207 endows a right to the accused to have access to all the documents, which constitute a part of the final report. Consequently, he argues that, at the time of making compliance of Section 207, the learned Special Judge erred in declining to supply deficient copies of documents to the petitioner, which he was/is otherwise entitled to.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, AND, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT

4. Per contra, the learned counsels representing the respondent and the complainant defend the reasons banked upon by the learned Special Judge concerned while drawing the impugned orders. They argues that, the documents, which did not become relied upon against the petitioner, do not hold any significance in the present case and production thereof is totally irrelevant.

ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT(S) GERMANE TO DISPOSAL OF THE INSTANT PETITION

5. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the contesting litigants and also perused the record. Before evincing any opinion upon the merits/de-merits of the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to, at this juncture, advert to some significant judicial precedent(s).

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the Suo Moto Writ (supra), observed that, while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials (such as statements, or, objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. The relevant paragraph of this verdict is reproduced hereinafter:-

“11. The amicipointed out that at the commencement of trial, accused are only furnished with list of documents and statements which the prosecution relies on and are kept in the dark about other material, which the police or the prosecution may have in their possession, which may be exculpatory in nature, or absolve or help the accused. This court is of the opinion that wh