OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Crpc) challenges an order dated 27th October 2006 passed by the learned Special judge, Delhi dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner seeking to place on record some public documents which according to the Petitioner required consideration by the Special Judge at the stage of framing of charges.

(2.) THE Petitioner is facing trial in case RC No. 8 (A)/91/siu/viii/cbi New Delhi under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act ). Earlier the Petitioner had filed applications dated 20th May 2003 and 27th April 2004 under Section 91 and 294 Crpc before the learned special Judge seeking to produce certain documents which included orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and orders passed by the other income-tax authorities for the various assessment years during the check period 1960-91. However, those applications came to be disposed of by an order dated 30th April 2005 by the Special Judge recording the fact that the learned counsel for the accused had conceded that the documents could not be looked into at that stage in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) SCC 568.

(3.) THE Petitioner was aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 30th April 2005 since it was felt that the concession was wrongly made. Accordingly he filed Criminal Miscellaneous (C) No. 4539 of 2005 in this Court under Section 482 Crpc wherein it was urged that even by an earlier order dated 10th November 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge it had been held that documents filed by the Petitioner along with an earlier application dated 30th May 2003 would be taken into consideration while considering the question of charge. That order despite being challenged by the Petitioner had been upheld both by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. However, the impugned order dated 30th April 2005 had the effect of taking away the relief granted, although of a limited nature by the Special Judge by the earlier order dated 10th November 2003. It was further urged that the observations in Debendra Nath Padhi have been misread by the learned Special Judge since it did not restrict the scope of Section 294 crpc which could be invoked independent of Section 91 Crpc. Alternatively, it was pleaded before this Court that in view of the observations in paras 28 and 29 of Debendra Nath Padhi, this Court should exercise its inherent powers to permit the Petitioner to produce the documents as prayed for by him before the learned Special Judge at the stage of framing of charges.