2025 (5) TMI 1988 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court permits CBI to produce CDs omitted from supplementary chargesheet following R.S. Pai precedent on inadvertent omissions

Sameer Sandhir Versus Central Bureau of Investigation

SC allowed CBI to produce CDs inadvertently not included with supplementary chargesheet in criminal trial involving IPC Section 120-B and PC Act ... Admissibility of an evidentiary materials-the two Compact Discs (CDs)-in a criminal trial - Whether the respondent-CBI can be permitted to produce the CDs which were inadvertently not produced along with the supplementary chargesheet - seizure of CDs and referred for forensic analysis to the CFSL along with voice samples of the accused - Offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the PC Act - HELD THAT:- The CDs were referred to in the supplementary chargesheet. After the report of the CFSL was received, the supplementary chargesheet was filed for placing on record the said report. Therefore, when the CDs were sought to be produced, in a sense, they were not new articles; the CDs were very much referred to in the supplementary chargesheet filed on 13th October 2013. There was only an omission on the part of the respondent-CBI to produce the CDs. Therefore, applying the law laid down in the case of R.S. Pai [2002 (4) TMI 973 - SUPREME COURT], the impugned judgments of the Special Court and the High Court cannot be faulted with. We do not see how the decision in the case of R.S. Pai requires reconsideration. In our view, the High Court ought not to have gone into the issue of the authenticity of the CDs allowed to be produced. Whether the CDs produced were the same which were seized on 4th May 2013 and 10th May 2013, is something which will have to be proved by the prosecution. The issue regarding the legality of the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act ought not to have been dealt with at this stage. Even if the production was allowed, the issue of the CDs' authenticity remains open. Thus, we do not find fault with the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court. However, the issue of whether the CDs produced were the same which were seized on 4th May 2013 and 10th May 2013 is left open. The issue regarding the validity of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is also left open. The issue of the authenticity of the CDs is kept open. The CDs were sought to be produced after the recording of evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses. It will also be open for the appellant to recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination on a limited aspect of the CDs. Subject to what is held above, the appeals are dismissed. The core legal questions considered in this judgment relate primarily to the procedural propriety and admissibility of certain evidentiary materials-the two Compact Discs (CDs)-in a criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The issues include:1. Whether the prosecution can produce additional documents or evidence, specifically the two CDs, after filing the original chargesheet, particularly when such material was in the possession of the prosecution at the time of filing the chargesheet but was inadvertently not produced on record.2. The interpretation and application of Section 173(5) and Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) concerning the production of documents and further investigation after the chargesheet has been filed.3. The applicability and binding nature of precedent decisions, notably the ruling in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai, regarding whether the word 'shall' in Section 173(5) CrPC is mandatory or directory.4. The extent to which the accused's right to a fair trial and to receive copies of relied-upon documents under Section 207 of the CrPC is impacted by the delayed production of evidence.5. Whether the trial court or the High Court erred in addressing the authenticity and admissibility of the CDs and the accompanying certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act at the stage when the CDs were permitted to be produced.Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Production of CDs after filing the chargesheetLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 173(5) CrPC requires the investigating officer to produce all relevant documents at the time of submitting the chargesheet. Section 173(8) permits further investigation and filing of a supplementary chargesheet if new evidence is found. The key precedent is the three-judge bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai, which held that the word 'shall' in Section 173(5) is directory, not mandatory, allowing the prosecution to produce additional documents post chargesheet if there was an omission or mistake.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the CDs were seized before the filing of the original chargesheet but were not produced due to inadvertence. The CFSL report, which analyzed the CDs, was not available at the time of the original chargesheet but was filed with the supplementary chargesheet. The Court held that since the CDs were referred to in the supplementary chargesheet and only omitted from production, the prosecution's application to produce them later was permissible under R.S. Pai.Key Evidence and Findings: The CDs were seized on 4th and 10th May 2013, sent for forensic analysis on 27th May 2013, and the CFSL report was received on 25th October 2013. The supplementary chargesheet filed on 30th October 2013 included the CFSL report but not the CDs themselves.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that omission to produce documents at the time of the chargesheet does not preclude their subsequent production, especially when the documents were in the possession of the prosecution and were referred to in the supplementary chargesheet.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that only new material discovered during further investigation could be produced after chargesheet filing, relying on Mariam Fasihuddin and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar decisions. The Court distinguished these by noting that the CDs were not 'new' evidence but pre-existing material inadvertently not produced.Conclusion: The Court upheld the Special Court and High Court orders permitting the production of the CDs after the chargesheet, reaffirming the principle in R.S. Pai.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 173(5) and Section 173(8) CrPCLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 173(5) mandates submission of all relevant documents with the chargesheet, while Section 173(8) allows further investigation and supplementary chargesheet if new evidence is found. The Court relied heavily on R.S. Pai, which interpreted these provisions as permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents if there was an omission, and further investigation is not precluded after chargesheet filing.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the prosecution's failure to produce the CDs initially was an omission, not a bar to their subsequent production. The Court rejected the appellant's submission that the R.S. Pai decision should be reconsidered, emphasizing that the language of Section 173(5) is directory and not mandatory.Key Evidence and Findings: The supplementary chargesheet was filed under Section 173(8) after receipt of the CFSL report, indicating further investigation was conducted.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the prosecution's actions conformed with the statutory scheme permitting further investigation and supplementary chargesheets, and the delayed production of CDs was justified.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's reliance on Mariam Fasihuddin, which emphasized that only new material can be produced during further investigation, was distinguished on the ground that the CDs were not new material but pre-existing evidence.Conclusion: The Court reaffirmed that the prosecution can produce additional documents after the chargesheet if there has been an omission or further investigation, consistent with R.S. Pai.Issue 3: Applicability of Section 207 CrPC and accused's right to copiesLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 207 CrPC mandates the supply of copies of the police report and documents to the accused to enable a fair trial. Decisions in Sidhartha Vashisht and V.K. Sasikala emphasize the mandatory nature of this provision.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court clarified that the present case concerns the prosecution's production of inadvertently omitted documents, not the accused's right to copies of documents already produced. The decisions on Section 207 do not apply to the prosecution's belated production of evidence.Key Evidence and Findings: The CDs were not produced initially but were referred to in the supplementary chargesheet. Copies were not supplied to the accused before they were sought to be played in court.Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the accused's rights under Section 207 do not preclude the prosecution from producing omitted evidence later, especially when no prejudice is caused.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that non-supply of copies violated Section 207 and the accused's right to a fair trial. The Court found these arguments inapplicable to this procedural context.Conclusion: The Court ruled that Section 207's requirements do not invalidate the prosecution's production of the CDs at a later stage.Issue 4: Authenticity and admissibility of the CDs and Section 65B certificateLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility of electronic records, requiring a certificate to prove authenticity. The Court noted that authenticity and admissibility are matters to be decided during trial.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The High Court had opined that the CDs' authenticity could not be doubted at the stage of production and that the accused could challenge admissibility during trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in prematurely addressing authenticity and admissibility issues.Key Evidence and Findings: The CDs were sealed and sent to the CFSL, and a certificate under Section 65B was produced with the supplementary chargesheet. However, the Court emphasized that whether the CDs produced are the same as those seized and the validity of the certificate must be established in trial.Application of Law to Facts: The Court left open the question of authenticity and admissibility, allowing the accused the right to challenge these aspects during trial, including recalling prosecution witnesses for cross-examination on the CDs.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution argued that the CDs' authenticity was prima facie established. The Court maintained that such issues require full trial adjudication.Conclusion: The Court held that the issue of authenticity of the CDs and the Section 65B certificate remains open for trial determination.Significant Holdings'If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge-sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court. In our view, considering the preliminary stage of prosecution and the context in which the police officer is required to forward to the Magistrate all the documents or the relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the word 'shall' used in sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as directory.''The scheme of sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that even after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation.''The Trial Court after hearing the contents of the CDs played in the Court was, prima facie, of the view that the contents of these CDs were in consonance with the transcript on record... After the filing of the charge-sheet by the prosecution, the Trial Court forms its opinion to take cognizance without ascertaining the authenticity, genuineness and veracity of the documents filed along with it; it is to be done during trial... The petition and other accused persons will be at liberty to challenge the admissibility/authenticity of CDs during trial.'Core principles established include:The production of documents omitted at the time of chargesheet filing is permissible with court's permission, as the requirement in Section 173(5) CrPC is directory.Further investigation and filing of supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC allow inclusion of new or previously omitted evidence.The accused's right to copies under Section 207 CrPC does not bar the prosecution from producing inadvertently omitted evidence subsequently.Authenticity and admissibility of electronic evidence and accompanying certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are to be determined during trial, not at the stage of production.Final determinations on each issue are that the prosecution was rightly permitted to produce the CDs after the chargesheet; the decisions in R.S. Pai remain good law and are applicable; the accused's rights under Section 207 CrPC were not violated by the delayed production; and the issues of authenticity and admissibility of the CDs remain open for trial adjudication. The appellant's appeals were dismissed subject to these observations.