Accused Individuals Are Entitled To Documents "relied Upon" By The Prosecution Under Section 207 Of The Cr.p.c :kalyani Singh V Central Bureau Of Investigation, Chandigarh

CAUSE TITLE:

Kalyani Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh

DATE OF ORDER:

25 April 2024

JUDGE(S):

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul 

PARTIES:

Petitioner: Kalyani Singh

Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh

SUBJECT:

The case pertains to a petition filed by Kalyani Singh under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Kalyani Singh seeks the quashing of an order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, regarding the dismissal of her application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. This application sought access to certain documents listed in a seizure memo, which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) classified as 'unrelied upon'. The case delves into the interpretation of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner's entitlement to access materials not relied upon by the prosecution.

 IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

• Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)- This section mandates that the accused be provided with the copies of all documents and materials relied upon by the prosecution in the case. It aims to ensure that the accused has access to all relevant evidence to prepare a defense.
• Section 172(3) of the (Cr.P.C)- This section imposes restrictions on the disclosure of case diaries and police files. It states that no one other than a police officer who is in charge of the investigation or a court can make any such diaries or files, unless the case falls under certain exceptions.
• Section 91 of the (Cr.P.C)- This section empowers a court to issue orders or summons, to produce a document or thing which are necessary for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Cr.P.C.

BRIEF FACTS:

• The petitioner, Kalyani Singh, filed a petition under section Section 482 of the criminal code procedure (Cr.P.C) seeking to challenge the order passed by the court of learned Special Judge, (CBI), Chandigarh. The said order dismissed Kalyani Singh's application under section 207 of the CrPC which pertain to the supply of documents relevant to defence in a criminal proceeding.
• The dispute revolved around certain documents listed in the seizure memo which Kalyani Singh contended were relied upon by the Central bureau of investigation (CBI) in their report. she argued that these documents were crucial for her defense and should be supplied to her as part of fair trial rights guaranteed under the constitution.
• While CBI took the position that the documents were “unrelied upon” (not considered essential for the case) and not included in the list of evidence submitted to the court. Therefore, they stated that they were not obligated to provide them to the accused.
• During the proceedings Kalyani Singh's legal counsel argued for her right to access all documents relied upon by the prosecution. They contended that denying her excess to these documents would deprive her of a fair trial, led by violating her fundamental rights. 
• Conversely, the CBI defended its position asserting that the documents in question were not relied upon in the prosecution’s case. They argued that supplying these documents to Kalyani Singh was unnecessary and would not impact the outcome of the trial.
• CBI maintained that they had completed with the legal obligation for providing all relevant evidence relied upon their reports.
• The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined relevant legal provisions including section 207 of the CrPC which mandates the supply of documents to the accused. It also considered principles of fair trial, disclosure of evidence, and the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings.

QUESTIONS RAISED:

• Whether the documents listed in the seizure memo, which the petitioner contended were relied upon by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), were essential for her defense and should be supplied to her?
• Whether the CBI's classification of certain documents as "unrelied upon" and their refusal to supply them to the petitioner was justified?
• Whether the petitioner's right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under the Constitution, was being upheld by the CBI's refusal to supply certain documents?
• Whether the petitioner's application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., seeking the supply of documents, was correctly dismissed by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER 

• The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner certainly argued that the CBI had relied on the entire seizure memo in its reports filed under Section 173(2) and 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. They contended that the CBI's claim that certain documents in the seizure memo were 'unrelied upon' was merely an excuse to deny the petitioner access to crucial documents.
• The petitioner asserted their legal entitlement to all documents mentioned in the seizure memo, as they were crucial for understanding the incriminatory evidence against her. They argued that since some documents from the seizure memo had already been provided to the family of the deceased, fairness demanded that they be provided to the petitioner as well.
• The petitioner argued that providing access to case diaries and police files pertaining to the initial investigation by the Chandigarh Police would not prejudice the prosecution, as they did not pertain to the CBI's investigation. They emphasized the need to examine these documents to ascertain if the investigation was disrupted initially.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the documents listed in the seizure memo were not relied upon by the prosecution and were therefore not part of the documents presented before the CBI court. They argued that the petitioner's request for these documents was unwarranted at this stage of the trial and had already been provided with all relevant documents and materials.
• The Counsel also submitted that the Respondent highlighted the statutory restrictions under Section 172(3) of the Cr.P.C., which prevented the petitioner from accessing case diaries and police files at this stage of the trial. They argued that these restrictions were essential for maintaining the integrity of investigations and protecting public interest.
• While the petitioner argued for broader access to documents for a fair trial, the CBI stressed compliance with court orders and statutory restrictions on document access to safeguard the integrity of legal processes.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:

• The court emphasized the importance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. in ensuring the fair trial rights of the accused. This provision mandates that the accused be provided with copies of documents and other materials relied upon by the prosecution.
• It clarified that the scope of Section 207 is limited to documents specifically relied upon by the prosecution. This means that only materials directly relevant to the case and relied upon by the prosecution need to be provided to the accused.
• The court reiterated that materials not relied upon by the prosecution, including those listed as 'unrelied upon' in the seizure memo, fall under the purview of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
• Section 91 allows the accused to seek access to such materials at an appropriate stage during the trial. This means that while the accused may not be entitled to these materials under Section 207, they can request them through Section 91 when necessary for their defense.
• The court acknowledged that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had complied with the orders of the Supreme Court to provide all materials relied upon by the prosecution to the petitioner.
• It noted that the petitioner had already been furnished with all relevant documents and materials relied upon by the prosecution, as mandated by the Supreme Court's orders.
• The court highlighted the statutory restrictions under Section 172(3) of the Cr.P.C., which limit access to case diaries and police files.
• It emphasized that these restrictions are essential for protecting sensitive information contained in case diaries, such as informant identities, and for maintaining the integrity of investigations.
• Through its analysis, the court sought to strike a balance between the fair trial rights of the accused and the broader considerations of statutory provisions and public interest.
• While emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights, the court also recognized the need to uphold statutory restrictions and considerations of public interest in maintaining the integrity of legal processes.

CONCLUSION

The hon’ble Court finds no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, Kalyani Singh. The petitioner's request for access to documents listed in the seizure memo, categorized as 'unrelied upon' by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), has been carefully considered and dismissed.

The Court reiterates the significance of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in ensuring a fair trial for the accused by providing access to materials relied upon by the prosecution.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioner's plea, ruling that the petitioner had already been provided with all relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution, as mandated by the Supreme Court's orders. The judgment underscored that while fair trial rights are paramount, they must be balanced with statutory provisions and considerations of public interest.