Court orders respondent to provide documents for pending trial after intervention. Order ensures fair defense opportunity.

The court directed respondent No.1 to provide copies of documents in 42 gunny bags seized by the police and now with the Income-tax Department to the applicant for the pending trial. Despite previous commitments, the documents were not supplied, leading to the court's intervention. Respondent No.1 was ordered to provide the necessary documents upon payment of fees, allowing the applicant to inspect them before obtaining copies. The court emphasized that the order was case-specific, ensuring a fair defense opportunity without setting a precedent. The application was disposed of with the rule made absolute to the specified extent.

---

---

Issues:
- Direction to provide copy of documents in 42 gunny bags seized by police and now with Income-tax Department

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of providing a copy of documents in 42 gunny bags seized by the police and now in the custody of the Income-tax Department. The applicant sought direction for the respondent No.1 to provide these documents for the defense in a pending trial. The applicant referred to a previous court order and highlighted the respondent's commitment to supply the documents as per the law. Despite the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court, the documents were not provided, leading to the current application.

The applicant's counsel argued that the necessary documents are crucial for the defense in the pending trial. Respondent No.1, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt, assured that the required documents would be provided upon payment of fees. The court, after hearing both parties and examining the evidence, concluded that the respondent No.1 must supply the copy of documents in the 42 gunny bags to the applicant on payment of requisite fees. The court allowed the applicant or their counsel to inspect the documents before submitting an application for copies. Respondent No.1 was directed to provide the certified copies within four weeks of receiving the application.

Furthermore, the court clarified that the order was specific to the present case and aimed to ensure a fair opportunity for the applicant to defend in the pending trial. The judgment emphasized that it should not be considered a precedent. With these directions and observations, the application was disposed of, and the rule was made absolute to the specified extent.

---