In Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010
(6) SCC 1 it was held:
“220. The right of the accused with regard to disclosure of documents 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 reportunder Section 173(2) as per orders of the Court. But certain rights of the
accused flow both from the codified law as well as from equitable concepts
of constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure
would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial. To claim documents within the purview of scope of Sections 207, 243 read with the provisions of
Section 173 in its entirety and power of the Court under Section 91 of the
Code to summon documents signifies and provides precepts which will
govern the right of the accused to claim copies of the statement and
documents which the prosecution has collected during investigation and
upon which they rely.
221. It will be difficult for the Court to say that the accused has no right to
claim copies of the documents or request the Court for production of a
document which is part of the general diary subject to satisfying the basic
ingredients of law stated therein. A document which has been obtained
bonafidely and has bearing on the case of the prosecution and in the opinion
of the public prosecutor, the same should be disclosed to the accused in the
interest of justice and fair investigation and trial should be furnished to the
accused. Then that document should be disclosed to the accused giving him
chance of fair defence, particularly when non-production or disclosure of
such a document would affect administration of criminal justice and the
defence of the accused prejudicially.
222. The concept of disclosure and duties of the prosecutor under the
English System cannot, in our opinion, be made applicable to Indian
Criminal Jurisprudence stricto senso at this stage. However, we are of the
considered view that the doctrine of disclosure would have to be given
somewhat expanded application. As far as the present case is concerned, we
have already noticed that no prejudice had been caused to the right of the
accused to fair trial and non- furnishing of the copy of one of the ballistic
reports had not hampered the ends of justice. Some shadow of doubt upon
veracity of the document had also been created by the prosecution and the
prosecution opted not to rely upon this document. In these circumstances,
the right of the accused to disclosure has not received any set back in the
facts and circumstances of the case. The accused even did not raise this issue
Print Page
(6) SCC 1 it was held:
“220. The right of the accused with regard to disclosure of documents 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 reportunder Section 173(2) as per orders of the Court. But certain rights of the
accused flow both from the codified law as well as from equitable concepts
of constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure
would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial. To claim documents within the purview of scope of Sections 207, 243 read with the provisions of
Section 173 in its entirety and power of the Court under Section 91 of the
Code to summon documents signifies and provides precepts which will
govern the right of the accused to claim copies of the statement and
documents which the prosecution has collected during investigation and
upon which they rely.
221. It will be difficult for the Court to say that the accused has no right to
claim copies of the documents or request the Court for production of a
document which is part of the general diary subject to satisfying the basic
ingredients of law stated therein. A document which has been obtained
bonafidely and has bearing on the case of the prosecution and in the opinion
of the public prosecutor, the same should be disclosed to the accused in the
interest of justice and fair investigation and trial should be furnished to the
accused. Then that document should be disclosed to the accused giving him
chance of fair defence, particularly when non-production or disclosure of
such a document would affect administration of criminal justice and the
defence of the accused prejudicially.
222. The concept of disclosure and duties of the prosecutor under the
English System cannot, in our opinion, be made applicable to Indian
Criminal Jurisprudence stricto senso at this stage. However, we are of the
considered view that the doctrine of disclosure would have to be given
somewhat expanded application. As far as the present case is concerned, we
have already noticed that no prejudice had been caused to the right of the
accused to fair trial and non- furnishing of the copy of one of the ballistic
reports had not hampered the ends of justice. Some shadow of doubt upon
veracity of the document had also been created by the prosecution and the
prosecution opted not to rely upon this document. In these circumstances,
the right of the accused to disclosure has not received any set back in the
facts and circumstances of the case. The accused even did not raise this issue
seriously before the Trial Court.
As held in Sidhartha Vashisht (Supra) the accused cannot claim an
indefeasible legal right to claim every document of the police file. Even
giving an expanded application to the doctrine of disclosure, the Petitioner is
neither entitled to these documents, nor is it the stage necessitatingproduction under Section 91 Cr.P.C. nor the transfer of investigation to
another officer amounted to reinvestigation forbidden under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C and does not call for issuance of a writ in terms of the dictate of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.C. Basappa (Supra).
indefeasible legal right to claim every document of the police file. Even
giving an expanded application to the doctrine of disclosure, the Petitioner is
neither entitled to these documents, nor is it the stage necessitatingproduction under Section 91 Cr.P.C. nor the transfer of investigation to
another officer amounted to reinvestigation forbidden under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C and does not call for issuance of a writ in terms of the dictate of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.C. Basappa (Supra).
”IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1929
W.P. (CRL) 1429/2010
Decided on: 28th February, 2011
ASHOK CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
versus
RAM CHANDER GARVAN, INSPECTOR CBI ..... Respondent
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
SUBJECT : OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1929
W.P. (CRL) 1429/2010
Decided on: 28th February, 2011
ASHOK CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
versus
RAM CHANDER GARVAN, INSPECTOR CBI ..... Respondent
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
