There Can't Be Piecemeal Disclosure Of Material On Which Prosecution Seeks To Base Its Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that there cannot be piecemeal disclosure of material on which the prosecution seeks to base its case.

Justice Vikas Mahajan said that the requirement to disclose the entire incriminating material prior to framing of charge stems from the right of the accused of fair opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution and to effectively put forth the defence.

Observing that a fair trial is a sacrosanct principle under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and takes within its sweep the conception of a speedy trial, the court said:

“The sword of Damocles cannot be allowed to forever hang on the heads of accused, falling unpredictably at the whims of the prosecution seeking to produce additional documents at will.”

It added: “No doubt it is the duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to correct an error in the interest of justice1 at the later stages as well but in criminal trials where the Courts decide to exercise their powers to allow evidence to be brought at a later stage under Sections 91 or 311 CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the same is not to be done for filling up the lacunae during the trial but only where the prosecution has mistakenly not filed a document.”

The court made the observations while rejecting the plea moved by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a trial court order dismissing its application for placing on record certain Hard Disks containing video footage as additional documents.

The bribery case FIR was registered by CBI in 2009 against then Company Law Board (CLB) member R Vasudevan and various others.

Noting that the trial had commenced in the case with the framing of charge more than a decade back on May 24, 2012, the court said it was not a case of an inadvertent mistake or where CBI could not file hard disks with the final report due to oversight nor it was a case where the hard disks were not available for being so filed.

The court said it was the informed decision of the CBI not to file the hard disks alongwith the final report before the commencement of trial.

“Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by the petitioner/CBI and such delay has led the trial to conclude, any interference at this stage will not only violate the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial but will cause grave prejudice to the respondents/accused who have disclosed and unfolded their entire defence,” the court said.

It added: “Therefore, at this stage giving a direction or permission to file additional documents, when the trial has concluded and the case is fixed for pronouncement of judgment, will not be in the interest of justice especially when it is the lack of alacrity on part of the petitioner/CBI which is responsible for this situation.”

Furthermore, the court also rejected another plea moved by CBI challenging another trial court order discarding the statements of the witnesses who had been cited to prove the audio and video recording in the CDs relating to the accused persons.

“Therefore, there is no occasion for the petitioner/CBI to prove either the said CDs or the hard disks. Accordingly, the witnesses cited to prove the audio and video recordings are no more the relevant witnesses. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the said witnesses have been dropped and not permitted to be examined by the petitioner/CBI,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP for CBI with Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Mr Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate, Mr P. K. Dubey, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Rajiv Nayyar and Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, Sr. Advocates

Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGTATION v. R. VASUDEVAN & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 635

Click here to read order