ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

“(a) To set aside the impugned order dated

08.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble LXXXI City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-82) produced herewith and marked as Annexure-“D”;

(b) To direct the Respondent to provide/supply the statement of Accused No.4 and statement of Petitioner in F.I.R. bearing No.RC.No.17(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/Bengaluru registered as Spl.C.C.No.54/2014 pending on the file of the Hon’ble LXXXI City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-82) before further proceedings in trial thereto; and (c) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is accused No.3 in Spl.C.C.No.54/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420 of IPC r/w Section 13(2), 13(1)((c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The CBI, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the petitioner along with other accused. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application comes to be filed under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.4. On the said application filed under Section 306 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner files an application under Section 207 r/w Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking plethora of documents at the hands of the prosecution prior to allowing the application under Section 306 filed by accused No.4.

4. The concerned Court, after taking note of the entire facts and the law declared by the Apex Court on the issue, on the following reasons rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

“21. It is true that the right of the accused to receive the documents / statements submitted before the Court is absolute and it must be adhered to by the prosecution and the Court must ensure supply of documents/statements to the accused in accordance with law. The present application is filed only after accused No.4 has filed application U/s.306 of Cr.P.C., seeking tender of pardon. This Court has not yet passed any order on the application filed U/s.306 of Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted before this Court that the application filed under Sec.306 of Cr.P.C., can be considered only after recording of statement of accused No.4 under Sec.164(5) of Cr.P.C. Now the accused No.4 is not treated as witness and no tender of pardon was granted by this Court and hence, question of producing statement of accused No.3 and 4 for the purpose of defence and for the purpose of cross-examination of accused No.4 being treated as witness does not arise at this stage. So this application is premature one and the accused No.3 can move fresh application, in case this Court allows the application filed by accused No.4 U/s.306 of Cr.P.C. and grant tender of pardon to accused No.4. I have examined the citations furnished by the learned counsel for accused No.3 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor and I have analyzed the principles laid down in those decisions. But those decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case at this stage and therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed as pre- mature one and accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

22. Point No.2: In view of the findings on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The application filed on behalf of the accused No.3 under Sec.207 R/w SEc.91 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed as pre-mature.

However, the accused No.3 is at liberty to move fresh application if necessary, in case this Court allows the application filed by the accused No.4 U\/s.306 of Cr.P.C., and in case the prosecution fails to produce the statements of accused No.3 and 4 to the Court.

4. What the concerned Court would order is the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 207 r/w Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed as premature. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to again file an application in the event the appl