Supervisory jurisdiction and evidence admissibility: challenge to letters rogatory became academic once documents were already secured.

Supervisory and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 and Sections 397 and 482 CrPC is discretionary and need not be used to quash an order merely because it may be irregular, especially where the challenged letters rogatory have already yielded documents in the investigating agency's custody. The High Court treated the challenge as academic because interference would serve no practical purpose. It also noted that evidence is judged by relevancy, and the mode of obtaining relevant material does not by itself make it inadmissible unless a legal prohibition applies. The concurring opinion added that an accused generally lacks locus at the investigative stage to control evidence collection, and admissibility objections arise when the evidence is tendered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 and Sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash an order issuing letters rogatory for procurement of documents, where the documents had already been received and were in the possession of the investigating agency.

Analysis: The petition challenged the magistrate's order as being without jurisdiction because Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not applicable. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that the impugned order was not supported by the Code, but held that supervisory and revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and is not meant to set aside every illegal order. Since the documents had already been obtained and were in the custody of the investigating agency, interference with the order would serve no practical purpose. The Court applied the principle that admissibility of evidence depends on relevancy, and that the manner in which relevant material is obtained does not by itself render it inadmissible, absent a legal prohibition. The Court therefore treated the challenge as having become academic and declined to interfere.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to quash the magistrate's order and dismissed the petition.

Concurring Opinion: P.B. Sawant, J. concurred in the dismissal on the additional ground that the accused had no locus standi at the investigative stage to control or challenge the manner in which evidence was being collected. The concurring view also emphasized that the collection of evidence by itself does not make the evidence illegal, and that objection can arise only when the evidence is tendered and its admissibility is tested.

---