Vinod Kumar Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2024 Latest Caselaw 17621 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vinod Kumar Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 23 September, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125907




CRM-M-21114-2022                                          -1-

127




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                             CRM-M-21114-2022
                                             Date of Decision : 23.09.2024

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA                                         .....Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                           .....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :   Mr. R.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for
            Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Advocate,
            for the respondent-CBI.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, challenge is thrown to the order

dated 07.05.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court,

Chandigarh, whereby, the application of the present petitioner to supply

the non-relied documents and statements, have been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance

upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re:To issue

Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in

Criminal Trial vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2021) 2

Crimes 218, submits that he restricts his prayer to the extent of supplying

the list of documents and statements, at this stage and reserve his liberty

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125907

to make an application for production of documents from the list supplied

by the respondent-CBI.

3. Before disposing of instant petition, it is relevant to highlight

the judicial precedents which are essential for adjudication of the instant

petition.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Suo Moto Writ (supra),

observed that, while furnishing the list of statements, documents and

material objects under Sections 207/208 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate

should also ensure that a list of other materials (such as statements, or,

objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the

accused. The relevant paragraph of this verdict is reproduced hereinafter:-

"11. The amici pointed out that at the commencement of trial, accused are only furnished with list of documents and statements which the prosecution relies on and are kept in the dark about other material, which the police or the prosecution may have in their possession, which may be exculpatory in nature, or absolve or help the accused. This court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr.PC, the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders, under the Cr.PC for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the draft rules have been accordingly modified...."

5. Moreover, in the Suo Moto Writ (supra), High Courts were

also directed to incorporate the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021, as

became finalized in terms of the discussion made therein, as part of the

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125907

rules governing criminal trials. Accordingly, the relevant incorporation

was made in the "Procedure in Enquiries and Trails by Magistrates",

relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"(c) Procedure in the trial of warrant cases instituted on Police Report.

6. Warrant case on Police report - Police to furnish copies to accused before the trial commences:- In a warrant-case (Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) the procedure would now depend on whether the case has been instituted on a police report or otherwise. Section 238 to 243 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 govern the procedure in warrant cases instituted on police reports. When the accused appears or is brought before the magistrate, the magistrate should, at the commencement of the trial, satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Further, every accused should be supplied with statements of witness recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C and a list of documents, material objects and exhibits seized during investigation and relied upon by the Investigating Officer in accordance with Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C.

Explanation: The list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits shall specify statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer."

6. Furthermore, by placing reliance upon the observations

recorded in Suo Moto Writ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in

its verdict rendered in "Manoj and ors. V/s State of Madhya Pradesh",

Criminal Appeal Nos.248-250 of 2015, Decided on: 20.05.2022, directed

that, in all criminal trials, the prosecution should furnish the list of

statements, documents, material objects and exhibits, which are not relied

upon by the investigating officer and the presiding officers shall ensure

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125907

compliance with such rules. The relevant paragraph of this verdict is

reproduced hereinafter:-

"179. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution, in the interest of fairness, should as a matter of rule, in all criminal trails, comply with the above rule, and furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules."

7. The import of the judicial pronouncements (supra) gets

further expounded in the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case titled as "P. Ponnusamy V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu", 2023(1)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 307, relevant paragraphs whereof are reproduced

hereunder:-

"14. The framework that emerges (by reading Section 173, 207, 208 and Draft Rule 4) is that based on the list of statements, documents, etc. received at the commencement of the trial, the accused can seek appropriate orders under Section 91 of the CrPC, 1973 wherein the magistrate on application of judicial mind, may decide on whether it ought to be called for. Additionally, by virtue of Section 391 of the CrPC, the appellate court, if it deems necessary, may take further evidence (or direct it be taken by a magistrate or court of sessions) upon recording reasoning. This safeguards the right of the accused in a situation where concern has been raised regarding evidence or material in possession of the prosecution, that had not been furnished, but was material to the trial and disposal of the case.....

XX XX XX

17. As stated earlier, the requirement of disclosure elaborated on in Manoj, not only was premised on the formulation of draft rules, but normatively premised on the ratio of the three-judge bench decision in Manu Sharma (supra). In these circumstances, the

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125907

proper and suitable interpretation of the disclosure requirement in Manoj (supra) would be that:

(a) It applies at the trial stage, after the charges are framed.

(b) The court is required to give one opportunity of disclosure, and the accused may choose to avail of the facility at that stage.

(c) In case documents are sought, the trial court should exercise its discretion, having regard to the rule of relevance in the context of the accused's right of defence. If the document or material is relevant and does not merely have remote bearing to the defence, its production may be directed. This opportunity cannot be sought repeatedly -

the trial court can decline to issue orders, if it feels that the attempt is to delay.

(d) At the appellate stage, the rights of the accused are to be worked out within the parameters of Section 391 CrPC, 1973."

8. This Court has examined the case at hand, on the touchstone

of the hereinabove discussed expositions of law, and proceeds to dispose

of the instant petition with a mandamus upon the prosecution agency, i.e.

the respondent-CBI, to forthwith supply the list of unrelied documents

and statements to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner is at liberty to

make an appropriate application under an apt provisions of law at

relevant stage of trial for production of such documents and statements

which according to the petitioner, are relevant.

9. In case such application is filed, the learned trial court

concerned, shall after considering the relevancy of such

documents/statements, and not merely because it has remote bearing to

the defence, may direct the production of such documents/statements.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125907

10. In case the learned trial court concerned, finds that the

documents/statements as sought by the petitioner, have no relevancy it

may decline such application.

11. The learned trial court concerned, shall afford only one

opportunity to the petitioner for making such application.

12. Disposed of accordingly.

13. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of

accordingly.

                                                       (KULDEEP TIWARI)
September 23, 2024                                           JUDGE
dharamvir

               Whether speaking/reasoned.       :      Yes/No
               Whether Reportable.              :      Yes/No




                                  6 of 6