AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 274 wordsSavitri Ratho, J
Heard Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned counsel for the Appellant in part.
During perusal of the scanned copy of the paper book which is on record and as the physical copy of the paper book which is available in the case record, it appears that there is discrepancy in the sequence of the pages which have been scanned as well as the sequence of pages which have been incorporated in the physical copy of the paper book.
Registry is directed to reconcile the differences both in the scanned copy as well as in the physical copy of the paper book.
That apart, the copies of the paper book supplied to the counsel for the CBI as well as to the Appellant are not the same, as the one supplied to the CBI is a copy of the typed copy of the paper book submitted by the Appellant in 2007 while the paper book supplied to the Appellant is a paper book containing the xerox copy of the documents prepared by the Registry.
Office is directed to reconcile the discrepancies and ensure that the paper books available with the learned counsel for the CBI, the Appellant and the Court are the same.
Learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the CBI may submit their paper books to the Office for the said purpose.
They submit that the same shall be submitted to the Registry in course of the day.
After reconciling the discrepancies, the paper books be supplied to the learned counsel for both the parties by 22.01.2026.
List this case on 30.01.2026.