J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 19404/2023 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 5108/2023, CRL.M.A. 19403/2023

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.05.2023 whereby the learned Special Judge (P.C.Act), CBI-08, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi has inter alia relying upon the case of P. Ponnusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1543, held that unrelied documents/statements cannot be supplied prior to the framing of charge. Learned Special Judge also inter alia held that prayer for providing copies of unrelied documents, statements and other material is also misconceived at this stage because only the list will be made available to the accused even as per directions given in In Re: To issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Suo Moto Writ (Crl) No. 1/2017, and not the documents, material etc. It was further inter alia held that the accused will have the liberty to apply afresh for supply of list of unrelied documents, statements etc. once the charges are framed and case is put at trial. Learned Special Judge also inter alia held that after receipt of list of such unrelied material, the accused will have also an option to move another application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of any particular document or material which is related to his defence and needed for the purpose of cross examination of any prosecution witness.

2. The petitioner aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Special Judge has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and filed the present petition seeking the following prayers:

a. Set aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 passed by Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, Ld. Special Judge, Rouse Avenue District Court, Delhi in CC No. 61/2022 titled as ―CBI Vs Kapil Wadhawan & Ors.‖ whereby the Ld. Special Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. seeking supply of all the un-relied documents, which are in possession of the prosecution in connection with the present matter and seeking directions to the Respondent/C.B.I to make disclosure to the effect that all relied/un-relied documents collected by the investigating officer and all relied/un relied statements recorded under 161 Cr.P.C. Act by the investigating officer during the investigation have been supplied to the accused persons. AND/OR b) Pass necessary order and directions thereby directing the Prosecution/Respondent to supply to the Petitioner/Accused the list of all un-relied upon documents along with all the documents/statements not-relied upon by the CBI.

3. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Special Judge vide the impugned order has fallen into a grave error while denying the unrelied documents to the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal learned counsel submits that the judgment rendered in In Re -Suo Motu (supra) and P. Ponnusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) are not contrary to each other, but rather supplementing to each other. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 6 SCC 1, it was specifically held that the rights under Sections 207/208 Cr.P.C. are much wider in range and cannot have a restrictive meaning in view of Section 173 Cr.P.C. Mr. Aggarwal submits that merely supplying of list of unrelied documents will have no purpose if the documents are not supplied to accused persons. Mr. Aggarwal has invited the attention of this court in detail to the judgments rendered in In Re: Suo Motu (supra), Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma (supra) and P. Ponnusamy (supra). Learned counsel submits that the learned Special Judge has misinterpreted the judgments, and the impugned order in fact is in the teeth of not only the judgments passed by the