Accused Can Be Given Only One Opportunity For Disclosure After Framing Of Charges: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that after framing of charges Court is required give only one opportunity of disclosure and the accused may choose to avail of this facility.Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "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."The Court...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that after framing of charges Court is required give only one opportunity of disclosure and the accused may choose to avail of this facility.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "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."
The Court further said that 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.
"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," it added.
These observations were made while hearing the plea filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking setting aside the order whereby in a fraud case CBI Court refused to allow inspection of documents "which were seized by the C.B.I., but neither be- came relied upon nor placed on record before the Court concerned."
Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the documents, which were seized by the C.B.I. during the course of investigation, however, were not relied upon or placed on record, but it carry dire significance for the petiioner to prove his innocence and necessary for fair trial.
After hearing the submissions, the Court relied on Suo Moto [Writ (Crl.) No.1 of 2017] titled as “In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials V/s The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. wherein Apex Court in 2021 said 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.
In the same case, the Apex Court had directed the High Courts to adopt the draft rules of criminal practice, within a period of 6 months.
In the present case, the Court said, the impugned order passed by the CBI Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity therein, inasmuch as, while declining the petitioner's application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. for supply of deficient documents, the Special Judge concerned has categorically observed that the entire documents, which are part of the Final Report qua the petitioner, have already been supplied to the accused.
Consequently, the plea was disposed of.
Mr. Raktim Gagoi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-C.B.I.
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the complainant.
Title: M/S COMMANDER REALTORS PVT LTD v. CBI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 314