The judgment emphasizes mandatory compliance with Supreme Court-established guidelines regarding document disclosure in criminal trials to ensure fair trial rights.

JUDGMENT

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.08.2023, passed by learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), C.B.I. Court No.1, Lucknow in Session Trial No.511 of 2022; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjay Kumar Pandey and others, arising out of RC No.0062018A0018, under Section 109 I.P.C. read with Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) and 13 (1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), Police Station CBI/ACB/Lucknow, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 207 read with Section 173 (6) Cr.P.C. was rejected.

3. By means of the aforesaid application, the applicant had prayed that the Investigating Officer be directed to ensure due compliance of the provisions of Section 173 (6) Cr.P.C. before proceeding any further in the case.

4. Section 173 (6) Cr.P.C. reads as follows: -

"173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request."

5. A list of witnesses and a list of documents relied upon by the respondent-C.B.I. have been annexed as Annexure No.10 to the affidavit filed in support of the application, and at serial no.276 of the list of documents, the applicant's explanation is mentioned and it is stated that it runs into 8 pages. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this explanation runs into more than 100 pages. It indicates that the entire explanation of the applicant has not been placed by the respondent-C.B.I. before the learned trial court and it gives rise to an apprehension in the mind of the applicant that similar course would have been adopted in the cases of other witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer also, regarding whom the applicant had no knowledge as to in how many pages their statement run.

6. The learned trial court has rejected the application by recording that the applicant has already been provided with copies of all the relevant documents relied upon by prosecution, under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Earlier the applicant had moved another application with same object which was disposed of by means of an order dated 12.07.2023 and from the perusal of the order sheet, it appears that thereafter the applicant has perused the relevant prosecution documents.

7. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement in the case of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2021) 10 SCC 598, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a suo moto Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India expressed its opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207 /208 CrPC, 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. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such mate