K.L. Sahu vs The state of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This revision has been preferred u/s 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the order dated 14/8/2013 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Bhopal in Special Case No. 7/11, whereby prayer of the petitioners for obtaining certified copies of certain unsupplied documents relied upon by the prosecution, was not accepted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while hearing on their application u/s 91 of the Code for supply of documents mentioned in the Challan, counsel for respondent No. 1 had sought time on the ground that the same would be filed along with the supplementary challan, but when the supplementary challan was filed, he expressed his inability to supply the same as it was voluminous. Therefore, vide order dated 16/2/13, petitioners were permitted to inspect the relevant unserved documents with liberty to obtain certified copy of the relevant documents. However, when the petitioners filed an application for obtaining the certified copy, the copying section informed that the Court below had refused to supply requisite certified copy and the record had been sent back to the Court. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application seeking permission to obtain certified copies of the unsupplied documents mentioned in document Nos. P/4, P/5 and P/8, but the same was rejected on the ground that the relevant documents had already been served on 16/2/13.

In response, learned Standing Counsel submitted that on 25/4/11 and 16/2/13, respectively while filing the Challan and supplementary Challan, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution had already been supplied to all the accused persons, except Seized Register, which was quite voluminous. According to him, only 2-3 pages of the same were relevant for the trial and copies of those pages had already been given to the accused persons and further on 16/2/13 liberty was granted to the accused persons to inspect the same themselves or through their pleaders, but despite that the inspection was not done for the purpose of protracting the trial.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court below found that on 25/4/11, while filing the Challan, copy of the same was provided to the accused persons, as was reflected from the endorsement as to its receipt, made in the margin of the order-sheet. Likewise on 16/2/13, copies of the relevant documents were provided to the accused persons and the margin of the corresponding order-sheet bears endorsement made by the accused persons to that effect. No objection was raised by the accused persons on the aforesaid two dates that copies of all the documents were not provided to them. Accordingly, on 16/2/13 prayer of the accused persons was rejected with liberty to inspect, any such voluminous document relied upon by the prosecution, which they deemed necessary.

Therefore, the Court below found that copies of all the documents, while filing Challan and supplementary Challan, were supplied to all the accused persons and under second proviso to Section 207 of the Code, liberty was granted to them to inspect the voluminous record themselves or through their pleaders and, accordingly, rejected the prayer made by the petitioners.

In the aforesaid premises, it is quite vivid, that copies of the disputed documents have already been supplied to the petitioners and further, considering their objection, trial Court had granted liberty to inspect the voluminous record under second proviso to Section 207 of the Code.

The impugned order, cannot be said to be, manifestly perverse, patently erroneous or illegal.

The revision, therefore, stands dismissed. C.C. today.