* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 02.11.2023 % Pronounced on : 30.01.2024 + W.P.(CRL) 623/2023 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP for CBI with Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr.

Prakarsh Airan, Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Batra and Mr.

Vashisht Rao, Advocates.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State with Mr. Sangeet Sibour, Mr. Jatin and Mr. Ashish Chojar, Advocates.

Ms. Aanchal Budhiraja, Advocate for Intervener. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

JUDGMENT

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

1. By way of this judgment I shall dispose of the present writ petition filed on behalf of the writ petitioner-CBI under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by Learned Special Judge CBI-018, New Delhi whereby the application filed by the CBI seeking certified copies of the documents was dismissed.

W.P.(CRL)623/2023 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

3. Heard.

4. Records perused.

5. During the course of the arguments, learned SPP for the petitioner-CBI submitted that the documents sought by the CBI were filed before the learned Special Judge in connection with the FIR/RC- 33(A)/2016/CBI/ACB/Delhi and the application was filed before the Ld. Special Judge in this regard wherein it was prayed that the documents be supplied for investigation purposes in connection with the another FIR/RC-DAI-2022-A-0051-CBI-ACB-DLI. He further submitted that once documents seized by the Investigating Officer in one case and have been forwarded to the Court, such documents are considered to be in the custody of the Court and permission of the Court where the said documents are lying is required for taking over such documents in another case for investigation purpose. He further submitted that files 0.53 DAV and 0.55 DAV are concerned with videography of the scene of the crime and Rule 14.16 of the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2005 (now Rule 9.9 of the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020) that the crime scene should be photographed as well as videographed as far as possible during the course of investigation such as pre-trap and post-trap proceedings specifically to cases of disproportionate assets. He further submitted that it is mandatory that search proceedings should also be videographed in order to enable the Court to appreciate the evidence collected by CBI.

6. Learned SPP for the petitioner-CBI submitted that it is trite that the accused has to be provided with even a list of unrelied documents at the time of supply of documents under section 207 Cr.P.C. hence, W.P.(CRL)623/2023 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed for all purposes in case those unrelied documents are required for the purpose of investigation/trial in another case, the same, as a matter of propriety, should be included in the investigation of the other case only with the permission of the Court. It was further submitted that the present FIR i.e. RC-DAI-2022-A-0051-CBI-ACB-DLI involves the issue of disproportionate assets which require details of verified movable and immovable assets, the value of assets based on purchase price which should be supported by documentary of other credible evidence at the time of their acquisition, income under different heads during check period and the progressive expenditure during the check period. He further submitted that investigation in a case involving disproportionate assets mandates the thorough examination of documents and the documents so sought by Petitioner-CBI forms the bed rock and foundation for the investigation in the present case FIR/RC-33(A)/2016/CBI/ACB/Delhi. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi be set aside as it will create hassles in the investigation.

7. I have the perused the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 and