TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two CDs (hereafter referred to as 'the CDs'), containing call records of 189 and 101 calls, respectively, were seized. On 27th May 2013, the CDs were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, 'the CFSL') for analysis. Sanction was granted thereafter on 2nd July 2013 under Section 19 of the PC Act. A charge sheet was filed by the respondent, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), on July 2, 2013. On 4th July 2013, cognizance was taken by the Special Court of the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the PC Act. 3. On 25th October 2013, the CFSL forwarded its report and original sealed CDs back to the respondent, CBI. On 30th October 2013, though a supplementary chargesheet was filed along with the CFSL report, the CDs were not filed. On 11th March 2014, charges were framed against the accused. Ultimately, the recording of the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses (PWs) commenced on 15th September 2014. 4. On 16th September 2014, while recording the evidence of PW-3, the CDs which were not filed on record were sought to be played by the prosecution. An objection was raised by the learned counsel representing the acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Judges of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. R S Pai and Anr (2002) 5 SCC 82. SUBMISSIONS 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the CDs were available to the prosecution/ investigating agency at the time of filing of the original chargesheet. His submission is that the CDs could have been produced only if they were seized while carrying out further investigation in accordance with sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that the material available to the prosecution prior to the filing of the chargesheet cannot be used by the prosecution under the guise of further investigation, as only the new material can be collected during further investigation. The learned senior counsel also relied upon what is held in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors (2020) 7 SCC 1. His submission is that in view of the said decision, additional documents can be produced by the prosecution only when th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The CFSL reports were filed with the chargesheet. The supplementary chargesheet refers to the seizure of CDs and the fact that the specimen voices of the accused, including the appellant, were recorded and forwarded to the CFSL along with the seized CDs in a sealed envelope. Along with the chargesheet, apart from the original CFSL report and other documents, a Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act'), was produced. 11. It is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of R.S.Pai1. Paragraph 7 of the said decision is material, which reads thus: "7. From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that normally, the investigating officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the chargesheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated in Section 173(8) CrPC obligates the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to 'obtain further evidence, oral or documentary', and only then forward a supplementary report regarding such evidence, in the prescribed form." This decision is of the Bench of two Hon'ble Judges. It does not make any departure from the decision of this Court in the case of R.S.Pai1. 13. Another Bench of this Court, consisting of three Hon'ble Judges, in its decision in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar3, in paragraph 55, reiterated the law laid down in the case of R.S.Pai1. Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the said decision read thus: "55. In a criminal trial, it is assumed that the investigation is completed and the prosecution has, as such, concretised its case against an accused before commencement of the trial. It is further settled law that the prosecution ought not to be allowed to fill up any lacunae during a trial. As recognised by this Court in CBI v. R.S. Pai [CBI v. R.S. Pai, (2002) 5 SCC 82:2002 SCC (Cri) 950], the only exception to this general rule is if the prosecution had "mistakenly" not filed a document, the said document can be allowed to be placed on record. The Court h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of Sidharth Vashisht4 and V K Sasikala5 will have no application. 15. In the facts of the case, the CDs were seized and referred for forensic analysis to the CFSL along with voice samples of the accused. 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.Pai1, 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.Pai1 requires reconsideration. 16. However, in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has observed thus: "20. Since, these documents are supported by required certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, their authenticity cannot be suspected at this stage. The Trial Court after hearing the contents of t....