Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Inx Media Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1338/2021 | CRL.M.A. 7654/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anupam S Sharma, Sudha Rani Ralangi, Prakarsh Airan, Harpreet Kalsi
For the Respondents: Shailesh Poria, Sidharth Luthra, Akshat Gupta, Pankaj Singhal, Shubhangi Jain, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Nitin Saluja, Vikalp Sharma, Akshat Sharma, Vikas Pathak, Kumar Vaibhaw, Himanshu Gupta, Mohd. Ashaad, Aditya Wadhwa, Sougat Mishra, Ayush Shrivastava, Sidharth Aggarwal, Varaz Maqbool, Abhinav Sekhri, Chandan Kumar, Chaitanya Sundariyal, Vikas Arora, Radhika Arora, Sandeep Kapur, Mridul Yadav, Aashneet Singh Anand, N. Hariharan, Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Ayush Aggarwal, Siddharth S. Yadav, Varun Deswal, Akriti G. Mittal, Harsh Mittal
The accused is entitled to a list of all documents seized during investigation, even if un-relied upon by the prosecution, and may seek court permission for inspection of such documents in the interest of a fair trial, provided it does not prejudice ongoing investigations.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 207 - Investigation records - Un-relied documents - Request for inspection - Whether accused entitled to inspect documents seized during investigation but not relied upon by prosecution - Court held that in view of the guidelines regarding criminal trial, Magistrate should ensure that list of materials seized but not relied upon is furnished to accused - Accused entitled to seek order for production of such materials in interest of justice - Judicial scrutiny of such documents is permissible to ensure fair trial. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) Criminal Trial - Fair trial - Right of accused - Disclosure of documents - Prosecution cannot be selective in supply of documents - Inspection permitted to ensure justice and prevent prejudice to accused. (Paras 7, 8, 16)
(C) CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 - Clause 12.32 - Procedure for inspection of documents in Malkhana - Manual recognizes right of accused to inspect records through Court order. (Paras 4, 19)
Facts of the case:
Public authority (Petitioner) challenged a trial court order directing the supply of certain documents and permitting the inspection of records kept in the Malkhana to the accused persons. The trial court had categorized the documents sought into six types and directed that un-relied documents (category 'd', 'e', and 'f') be made available for inspection by the defence to facilitate a fair trial.
Findings of Court:
The Court dismissed the petition, observing that the accused have a right to access documents that might be vital for their defence or exculpatory, provided the disclosure does not interfere with ongoing investigations. The trial court correctly balanced the interests of justice, upholding fairness to the accused while ensuring investigation integrity.
Issues: Whether the accused has a legal right to demand the inspection of documents seized during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution in the charge-sheet prior to the stage of framing charges.
Ratio Decidendi: Drawing upon Supreme Court directions regarding criminal trial guidelines, the Court held that the prosecution cannot keep the accused in the dark about materials that may be exculpatory. Permitting inspection of un-relied documents, subject to judicial safeguards, is essential for a fair trial and does not violate the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution.
Result: Petition and application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court's power to grant access to un-relied documents (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. competing interests of fair trial and investigative integrity (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. mandatory nature of supreme court guidelines for criminal trials (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's authority to ensure balance between access and investigation (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
1. By this petition, the CBI challenges the impugned order dated 5th March, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge on the applications filed by the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. seeking supply of documents.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge noted that the documents sought through these applications were broadly:
a. Deficient documents
b. Dim or illegible copies
c. Incomplete or torn documents
d. Part of documents which have been filed in Court by CBI
e. The documents though seized or collected during investigation, but not filed in Court
f. The documents referred to or reflected in correspondence of CBI and other authorities or in statements of witnesses
3. During the course of hearing before the learned Trial Court, no dispute was raised by the CBI in respect of the documents mentioned at serial Nos. (a), (b) and (c), however documents mentioned at serial Nos.(d), (e) and (f) were disputed and the stand of the CBI was that since the same were not relied upon by the CBI in the charge-sheet, the documents mentioned in the category (d), (e) and (f) cannot be given to the accused.
4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Special Judge directed CBI to supply all the pages/parts thereof or the entire documents in relation to the documents few pages whereof or parts of the said documents are relied upon and filed by the CBI i.e. the documents at serial No. '(d)'. As regards the documents at serial nos. '(e)' and '(f)' are concerned, referring to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court as also relying upon Clause 12.32 of the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 which lays down the procedure of inspection of documents kept in the Malkhana on Court orders, the learned Special Judge permitted inspection of records of the case lying in Malkhana of CBI during the working hours of the CBI Malkhana as per provisions contained in Clause 12.32 of CBI (Crime) Manual and other clauses of the Manual and the policy, guidelines or rules framed on this issue, if any, to the learned defence counsel or their associates as per the requirements by way of a written authorization. The concerned SP was also directed to give necessary directions to the Officer Incharge of CBI Malkhana to depute requisite and responsible staff to facilitate the inspection under the direct supervision of some responsible officer. The HIO or IO of the case was also directed to be present at the time of said inspection so as to facilitate in finding the nature and relevance of such documents. The Court also directed that the security of records had to be maintained and any tampering thereof shall have to be ruled out and the inspection be completed within 10-15 days.
5. Further, to rule out the apprehension of CBI that inspection of documents if permitted may hamper further investigation, the learned Special Judge also clarified that this permission of inspection of records lying in the Malkhana granted by the Court shall not be in respect of those documents in relation to which the investigation by the CBI is still pending, as has also been indicated in the charge sheet itself and even witnesses related to such documents have yet not been examined. It was also noted that the issue whether or not any document supplied to the accused persons as a result of this order is of sterling quality or can be considered at the stage of charge for uprooting the case of prosecution is kept open to be considered at the stage of framing of charge itself.
6. Contention of learned counsel for the CBI is that the respondent cannot seek production of the documen
