Documents not part of charge sheet cannot be withheld
The documents which are not part of the charge sheet, but seized by the investigating agency during the investigation of the offence, cannot be withheld by the prosecution merely on the ground that the documents sought to be summoned are not part of the charge sheet, the Gujarat High Court held in a revision application in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhat v State of Gujarat.
This was held when Former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt sought production of certain documents including “A” Summary report in relation to the trial in a 1996 case under Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) in his revision application.
Trial court held the documents are not necessary & desirable
The Trial Court dismissed the applications observing that, he has not established that the documents sought are ”necessary and desirable” for the just decision of the case and that it has been filed with a view to delay the trial proceedings. The document, “A” Summary report, was not part of the charge sheet, but after completion of investigation, the IO forwarded it to the Special Court in a sealed cover.
HC held the accused must have access to the documents
The High Court observes that when the accused comes to the court contending that, some papers forwarded to the Court by the Investigating Agency have not been exhibited by the prosecution as the same favours the accused, the court must concede a right to the accused to have an access to the said documents.
The High Court held that the investigating agency being a part and parcel of the State is legally required to be fair, just and reasonable. It is no doubt true that, since from his arrest in the alleged crime, the applicant had filed many applications either before this or trial Court under various provisions of the Code, as a result, trial could not commence. However, the Court being a guardian of fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India, keeping the larger interest and rights of the fair trial and defence of the accused, should have decided the issue accordingly.
Prosecution argued they can exclude any document
Opposing the plea the prosecution, citing the case of P.Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala [(2020) 9 SCC 161], argued that, as per Sections 173(6) and Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the IO can exclude any part of statement which is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interest of justice. However, as regard to the “documents “, the IO has no option except to forward “all the documents” to the Magistrate along with the police report.
Applicant argued he has the right to get all documents
The counsel of the applicant Sanjeev Bhat, relying on the decision of V.K.Shasikala v. State [(2012) 9 SCC 771], submitted that the accused has right to fair trial and entitled to all the documents, not relied upon by the Investigating Agency and not forming the part of the chargesheet.
HC held accused has right to fair disclosure
The High Court held that in the case of Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), [(2010) 6 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that, the right of accused with regard to disclosure of document is a limited right, but is codified and is the very foundation of fair investigation and trial.
It is further held that, on such matters, the accused cannot claim an indefeasible legal right to claim every document, but certain rights of the accused flow from both the codified law as well as from equitable concepts of the constitutional jurisdiction.
Referring to the case of Manu Sharma case, the Apex Court in V.K. Sashikala case held that, the question arising would no longer be one of compliance or non-compliance with the provisions of Section 207 CrPC and would travel beyond the confines of the strict language of the provisions of the CrPC and touch upon the larger doctrine of a free and fair trial that has been painstakingly built up by the Courts on a purpose interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Free & fair trial demands fair disclosure
The court is of the view that what is of significance is that when the accused comes to the court contending that, some papers forwarded to the Court by the Investigating Agency have not been exhibited by the prosecution as the same favours the accused, the court must concede a right to the accused to have an assess to the said documents.
