Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Ram Lagan Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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: -
The judgment emphasizes mandatory compliance with Supreme Court-established guidelines regarding document disclosure in criminal trials to ensure fair trial rights.
The prosecution must disclose all documents, including those not relied upon, to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial.
The accused is entitled to document disclosure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. for a fair trial, including materials not necessarily relied upon by prosecution.
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.
Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.
Important Point:a) A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiryb) it was the duty of the prosecution to ensure fair trial for both the prosecution and the ....
The court upheld that the accused must specify required documents for defense; vague applications do not warrant disclosure of all materials.
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....
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
