O R D E R

% 09.07.2024 By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is under-trial in case bearing CC No. CBI/422/2019 arising from RC-2A/2022 titled CBI vs. Anirudh Prasad Pandey impugns order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ACMM’), whereby the petitioner’s application under section 207 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the CBI to file the ‘un-relied’ upon documents and statements on record and to supply copies of the same to the petitioner, has been rejected.

2. Notice on this petition was issued on 06.03.2024; following which reply dated 15.05.2024 has been filed by the CBI to the petition.

CRL.M.C. 1886/2024 Page 1 of 7

3. The court has heard Mr. Anindya Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ravi Sharma, learned SPP appearing for the CBI.

4. Relying upon decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this court in Dheeraj Wadhwan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, [(2023) SCC OnLine Del 4870] and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. M/s. INX Media Pvt. Ltd., [(2021) SCC OnLine Del 4932], Mr. Malhotra submits, that it is now the settled position of law that accused persons are permitted inspection of the even the ‘un-relied’ upon documents;

and that therefore the petitioner be also permitted such inspection.

5. In this behalf, learned counsel cites the following observations in M/s.

INX Media Pvt. Ltd (supra):

“16. Indubitably, while passing an order of inspection of unrelied upon documents, the Court is bound to strike a balance between the competing interest of ensuring a fair trial to the accused as also maintaining the sanctity of further investigation, in case further investigation is to be carried on. Case of learned counsel for the CBI before this Court is that since further investigation is going on, permitting the accused or their representatives to inspect the documents lying in Malkhana will hinder the investigation. As noted above, the learned Trial Court directed the CBI to supply copies of all the pages/part thereof, or the entire document to the accused persons in relation to documents only a few pages or part of document were being relied by the CBI. In relation to the documents which have not been filed in the Court, the learned Trial Court did not direct the CBI to produce the said documents in Court and held that the ends of justice would be met if the accused persons are permitted to inspect the said documents lying in the Malkhana of CBI and to find out if any such document is relevant or vital for their defence or is of sterling quality to demolish the very case of prosecution and after making inspection CRL.M.C. 1886/2024 Page 2 of 7 learned counsel representing these accused shall let the Court know the details of these documents so that copies thereof can be supplied to them.

“17. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has already clarified that the permission to conduct inspection being granted by the Court was not in respect of those documents in relation to which the investigation by the CBI was still pending. Therefore, the apprehension of the CBI that inspection would hinder in the further investigation is wholly unwarranted. Claim of learned counsel for the CBI is that the CBI at the moment cannot pre-empt which document would be necessary for the further investigation. In the present case charge sheet has already been filed and thus the claim of CBI that it is not aware which document would be relevant for further investigation is unwarranted.

“18. In the decision reported as (2012) 9 SCC 771 V.K.

Sasikala v. State Hon'ble Supreme Court noted a common feature that seizure of a large number of documents takes place in the course of investigation in a criminal case and that after completion of the process of investigation and before submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the investigatin