2002 (4) TMI 973 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows late submission of documents by prosecution in criminal cases

The Supreme Court held that while the investigating officer is required to produce relevant documents initially, the omission to do so does not preclude ... Production of additional documents after submission of charge-sheet - directory nature of 'shall' in Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. - permissibility of further investigation and supplementary reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.Production of additional documents after submission of charge-sheet - directory nature of 'shall' in Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. - permissibility of further investigation and supplementary reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - Prosecution may produce additional documents gathered during investigation after submitting the charge-sheet; the requirement in Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. to forward documents is directory and not an absolute bar to subsequent production. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that while an investigating officer is normally required to forward all documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely at the time of submitting the report, omission to do so does not constitute an absolute prohibition on later production. The use of the word 'shall' in Sub-section (5) is to be read as directory in the context of the preliminary stage of prosecution. The Court relied on the scheme of Sub-section (8), which expressly permits further investigation and the forwarding of additional evidence obtained therefrom, and on precedent treating analogous provisions as directory. Consequently, if relevant documents were omitted (whether unintentionally or because they were then considered irrelevant), the Investigating Officer may, with the permission of the Court, produce such documents subsequently; allowing such production does not necessarily prejudice the accused and the Special Court's refusal to permit production in the circumstances was unsustainable. [Paras 7, 8]The Special Court's order refusing permission to produce additional documents is set aside; the application for production of additional documents is allowed and the Special Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed. The Special Court's refusal to permit production of additional documents collected during investigation was set aside; such documents may be produced subsequently and the Special Court shall proceed in accordance with law. Issues Involved: Whether prosecution can produce additional documents gathered during investigation after submitting charge-sheet u/s 173 of CrPC.Summary:The Special Court at Bombay rejected an application by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for production of additional documents in a case involving alleged conspiracy and financial irregularities. The prosecution sought to produce documents after respondent's discharge application was filed. The appellant argued that the Special Judge's order was illegal and contrary to Section 173(5) of CrPC, as relevant documents were not initially produced by the Investigating Officer. The respondent contended that under Section 173(5) CrPC, all documents must be submitted at the time of the report. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 173 of CrPC and held that while the Investigating Officer is required to produce relevant documents initially, the omission to do so does not preclude later production with court permission. The Court interpreted the word 'shall' in Section 173(5) as directory, not mandatory. Referring to precedent, the Court emphasized that further investigation is not precluded after the charge-sheet submission, allowing for the production of additional documents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Special Court's order and permitting the production of additional documents by the prosecution.Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.