M.L. MEENA Vs. STATE (CBI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order of 17th May, 2014 rejects petitioner's application under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. seeking to place on record some documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as the 'RTI Act'). At the hearing, learned Counsel for petitioner relied upon decisions in Crl. Rev. P. 240/2011 titled as Lt. Gen. Retd. Nirmal Puri v. CBJ, decided on 13th November, 2014; Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2014 1 DMC 644 ; State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 1 SCC 568 ; Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors., 2009 AIR(SC) 1013 , to submit that the documents produced by the defence are of sterling quality and so, they ought to be considered even at the charge stage and further submits that the documents sought to be produced in Hem Chand v. State of Jharkhand, 2008 5 SCC 113 , were not obtained through RTI and in the instant case, petitioner has a good case for discharge.

(2.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI had supported the impugned order and had submitted that Apex Court's decision in Hem Chand has not been considered in the decisions relied upon on behalf of petitioner and the instant case is squarely covered by the Apex Court's decision in Hem Chand and that there is no substance in this petition.

(3.) Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that Apex Court's decision in Hem Chand has not absolutely barred the trial Court from considering the relevant material placed on record by the accused even at the charge stage. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Hem Chand are as under: