DHARAMBIR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONS of law concerning supply of copies of documents, gathered by the prosecution during investigation, to an accused person at the pre-charge stage arise for consideration in these petitions. It involves the interpretation of Sections 173 (5) and 207 of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 (Crpc), Sections 3 and 65b of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 ('ea')and Sections 2 (o) read with Section 2 (t)of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act ).

(2.) THERE are four cases in each of which a charge sheet has been filed and where some or all of the Petitioners here have been arrayed as accused. The FIR in the earliest of the four cases, bearing No. RC 0025 (A)/2003-DLI was registered on 3rd April 2003 under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d)PC Act. This concerns the unauthorised construction of a lift at the property at mahavira Towers, IIIrd Floor, Paschim Vihar. In this case (hereinafter the lift Case') Shri subhash Sharma ('sharma'), the former vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development authority (DDA) is accused No. 1, Shri dharambir Khattar ('khattar') who allegedly 'worked as a middleman between public servants and private individuals is accused no. 2, Shri Ved Prakash Kaushik an individual and coconspirator who helped in liaising with the DDA is accused No. 3, Shri Pradeep kapoor husband of Smt. Kavita Kapoor, a partner of a firm M/s APY Hoteliers and developers is Accused No. 4 and Shri Anil wadhwa and Shri Yashpal Manocha, the other two partners of the said firm are accused Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. The charge sheet in the Lift Case was filed on 15th July 2004. The prosecution concluded its arguments on charge almost two years ago on 2nd June 2006. Arguments on behalf of accused No. 1 Sharma have been completed. The arguments on behalf of accused No. 2 Khattar are in progress and arguments are yet to be addressed on behalf of the four other accused.

(3.) WHAT is common to all the chargesheets is that apart from the statements of witnesses, and certain documents details of which have been set out in the Anexures to the chargesheets, the prosecution seeks to rely on intercepted conversations involving the accused made on 15 mobile and landline telephones belonging to Khattar, his family members and other accused which were placed under electronic surveillance between december 2002 and March 2003 pursuant to permissions being obtained from the competent authority from time to time under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the Rules thereunder.