Raj Kumar v. Central Bureau Of Investigation
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : November 20, 2024 RAJ KUMAR -PETITIONER V/S CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION -RESPONDENT
Present:
Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate with Ms. Gauri Handa, Advocate Mr. Dharambir Bhargav, Advocate and Mr. Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-C.B.I.
*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
! !
"# # $% & !'! (! )* ! !
+ $% !
'
)* , !',!
' )*+ $% "
, , -.! )*!/'0 ! #1#" #
!
"#
$$
%
%
!
&
*'!
$ ! $% & , +
, ! , 2 , ! ! , ' , , , '%
+ $%
"
! ! , !
3 4
5 !
, 5 , !6
, '4+
!0 7 ## # !
! " # " "
$
%& ' ( ' ) '*+
,
$
! ,,
2! ! ( )*
!
' ' '
8 - !
"# # !
!' +
$% (! ,' )* % ! )*6
! & !' !
' !' , ' )*
&
6 (' ' 4 ! !! !' ! , 1 * /
+ $% ! % !
' , ! !
6 -!' /
! ! , ' 6 !',!
' , '
6 ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT(S) GERMANE TO DISPOSAL OF THE INSTANT PETITION 8.
This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the contesting litigants and also perused the record. Before evincing any opinion upon the merits/de-merits of the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to, at this juncture, advert to some significant judicial precedent(s).
9.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, 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...."
10.
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 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." 11.
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 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." 12.
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 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."
13.
The gist of the hereinabove alluded to judicial precedents can be extracted in the following manner:- (i) the prosecution is required to furnish only the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits, which are not relied upon by the investigating officer; (ii) the court is required to, after the charges become framed, give only one opportunity of disclosure and the accused may choose to avail this facility, but, only once; (iii) in case documents are sought to be produced, the trial court should, after considering the relevancy of the said documents and not merely because it has remote bearing to the defence, direct production thereof. The trial court is at liberty to decline such production, in case it feels that it is a dilatory tactic;
FINAL ORDER ,
$% & ' , , '
8 + 2 /
$% + , ## #1/!
, )*! ' + , ! ! 6 , ! , * ! (,! )* % ! ,
$% & + 2
( & /'! + 2 /
$% !'
09: , ## #1! '! 3 !
,
, 1 ) '
& ! # # #1! , !, , ## #1' ,5 , )*
! ! ,, ' )*4 !, 4;! "!
! & !
' 4; ,
)* , )*! , ! ,
!' + , ,
)*! , , " #&, 4 !
'
,! '!.; ' 6 ! !' <) 6' ! ' 6 ! )* ,
! 2!% 5
= ,
! + 2 /
$% 2 '
!
' & , , ! '
% !' '
' '
%! '
% '
, , " #&
+ , ## #1 20.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to, in respect of his request enumerated at Sr. No. (ii) of his application (Annexure P-1), approach the learned trial Court concerned at the relevant stage, in view of the proposition of law expounded by this Court in CRMM-26474-2023, titled as "Central Bureau of Investigation V/S Surinder Pal Singh", Decided on : August 28, 2024, principle whereof already becomes discussed in paragraph 13 of this verdict. 21.
Since the above made prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the learned counsel representing the respondentC.B.I., therefore, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.08.2024 rendered by this Court in CRM-M-26474-2023. 22.
In case, the petitioner, at the relevant stage, files any application seeking supply of the documents enumerated at Sr. No. (ii) of his application (Annexure P-1), the learned Judge concerned shall decide the same, while keeping in view the verdict rendered by this Court in CRM-M-264742023, besides evaluating, on the basis of evidence placed on record by the prosecution, as to whether such information/document exist or not. 23.
The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 24.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI) November 20, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No