Benjamin Kujur vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Shubhashish Rasik Soren, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, in Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.04 of 2024 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.03/2024 dated 29.2.2024 registered under section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act whereby the learned court has rejected the petition filed under section 207 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 230 of BNSS, 2023, pending in that learned court.

The F.I.R was registered alleging therein that on 06.02.2024 he had purchased 5 decimals of land from one Sania Oraon and had subsequently filed an application for mutation, which was registered as Mutation Case No.1513 R27/2023-2024/Chanho. Thereafter he met the revenue officer namely, Vyanjan Minz, who allegedly demanded Rs.11,000/- as bribe upon which he filed a complaint before the ACB Ranchi on 27.02.2024. Thereafter Dinesh Kumar Prajapati S.P ACB Ranchi went to Chanho Anchal on 29.2.2024, wherein he secretly investigated and found out that the person who had demanded the bribe amount was Benjamin Kujur, who was working in Chanho Anchal as Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak. Thereafter the complainant came at the place of occurrence, and in the presence of Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, S.P. ACB Ranchi the accused demanded the bribe money from the complainant and subsequently the instant FIR was registered.

Mr. Shubhashish Rasik Soren, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has been submitted and it is fixed for framing of charge. He next submits that the petitioner has been supplied the case diary and in view of that there is no substantial compliance of the provisions made under section 173 Cr.P.C. He next submits that in light of Section 207 Cr.PC, the petitioner has filed a petition before the learned court to provide separate statement recorded by the witnesses concerned in light of section 161(3) Cr.PC. He submits that however learned court has rejected the same which is not in accordance with law and as such, proper direction may kindly be issued to the learned court to supply the same. He relied in the case of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (2021) 10 SCC 598. He further relied in the case of Sidharth and Others v. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 12 SCC 545 as well as the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Barun Pandit v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 2803 and lastly, he relied in the case of Malkiat Singh and Others v. State of Punjab reported in (1991) 4 SCC 341.

Relying on the above judgments, Mr. Soren, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in all those judgments it has been held that the statutory provision is required to be strictly followed, and if it is not being followed, the accused right will be prejudiced and in view of that, he submits that the learned court has wrongly passed the order, and as such, the same may kindly be quashed and proper directions may kindly be issued to the learned court concerned.

Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the police paper in light of the provisions made under section 173 CrPC has already been provided to the petitioner and the petitioner has also obtained the certified copy of the FIR and the charge sheet. He next submits that the petitioner has also received the entire case diary which is containing all the materials against the petitioner and even the statement of the witnesses also and that too in a clear/typed copy as the computer has been used in preparation of charge sheet. He also submits that the provisions made under section 91 of the Cr.PC for summons to produce the documents and other things. He next submits that in course of trial also the petitioner is having the right to invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C if certain documents are said to be not supplied to the petitioner. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State further adds that in light of sub section 3 of Section 207 Cr.PC police has not requested for exclusion recorded in light of sub section 3 of Section 161 Cr.P.C.

In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, and after going through the records including the order of the learned Sessions Judge, it transpires that the petitioner has received the documents including the case diary in light of Section 173 Cr.PC which also contains the statement of the witnesses recorded under sub section 3 of Section 161 Cr.PC. The contention of the petitioner is that separate sheet of the said record has not been provided to the petitioner which appears to be a misconceived one as the same is already the part of the case diary and that has already been provided to the petitioner by the learned court and it is not the case of the petitioner that nothing is supplied to the petitioner. The provision of Section 207 CrPC is having material bearing on this subject and make an interesting reading. This provision only requires or mandates that the court without delay and free of cost should furnish to the accused the copies of the police report, first information report, statements, confessional statements of the persons recorded under section 161 Cr.PC whom the prosecution wishes to examine as witnesses, of course, excluding any part of the statement or document as contemplated under section 173(6) of the Code, any other document or relevant extract thereof which has been submitted to the Magistrate by the police under sub section (5) of section 173. In contradistinction to the provisions of section 173, where the Legislature has used the expression "documents on which the prosecution relies" are not used under section 207 of the Code. Therefore, the provisions of section 207 of the Code will have to be given liberal and relevant meaning so as to achieve its object. Not only this, the documents submitted to the Magistrate along with the report under section 173(5) would deem to include the documents which have to be sent to the Magistrate during the course of investigation as per the requirement of the section 170(2) of the Code. Further, the right of the accused with regard to disclosure of document is a limited right but is codified and is the very foundation of a fair investigation and trial. On such matters, the accused cannot claim an indefeasible legal right to claim every document of the police file or even the portions which are permitted to be excluded from the documents annexed to the report under section 173(2) as per the orders of the court. But certain rights of the accused flow both from the codified law as well as from equitable concepts of the constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial.

In view of above, the accused claim only the document relied by the prosecution or filed with the charge sheet, even not relied and in the present case, as discussed herein above, the respondent ACB has not excluded any of the witnesses, however, and even if in course of trial, something is coming to the knowledge of the petitioner, that document is not supplied, the provisions are made under section 91 of the Cr.PC of summoning of the documents and in light of the section 173 of the CrPC the document has already been supplied to the petitioner and if the prosecution is able to show that it has complied the said provision at pre-charge stage, then the accused has got no right to deny the same.

Admittedly, the documents have been supplied to the petitioner, and in view of that, no case of interference is made out, and as such, this petition being Cr.M.P. No.3271 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed.