LAXMANSINH DANSINHJI GOHEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question that arises in this revision application is whether accused is entitled to copy of muddamal articles if they consist of documents, under sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short).

(2.) Few facts to resolve this controversy required to be stated are as under: Petitioners are accused of an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge-sheet is filed against them and the case is Special Case No. 1 of 1990 before the Special Judge, Nadiad, District Kheda. There is no dispute that documents annexed with the charge-sheet are supplied when the accused were trapped and raid was carried out; search of the persons and their office premises was carried out and certain articles which included certain receipt books, register and other documents are seized. Accused before commencement of trial has by application Ex. 6 asked for the copies of documents seized during search and taken as muddamal. Thus documents of which the copies are sought are in fact muddamal articles seized at the time of search of the accused by the investigating officer in the course of raid. The documents asked for are referred in the application. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge rejected the application on the ground that the documents sought for by the accused are not the documents as referred to in sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 173 and the documents sought for being the muddamal articles, no doubt are in nature of documents, could not be supplied to the accused as the accused are not entitled to the same. Learned Special Judge also observed that those documents are relied on by the prosecution as muddamal and not as documents referred to in Sec. 173(7) of the Code. However, the learned Special Judge has granted permission to take down copy thereof with the previous permission of the Court if they so choose. Accused petitioners have challenged this order by this petition.

(3.) Mr. Parikh appearing for the petitioners contended before this Court that simply because the documents are seized as muddamal articles, they do not cease to be documents and as they are documents, they are the documents as referred in sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 173 of the Code. Mr. Parikh contended that the accused is entitled to the documents on which the prosecution is to rely. It is not that the prosecution is not going to rely on these muddamal articles which also contains documents for the proof of their case against the accused. Mr. Parikh contended that it is necessary for the accused to have the copies of the said documents seized as muddamal as they do not cease to be documents referred in Sec. 173(7) of the Code to defend effectively their case. Mr. Parikh also contended that even though the prosecution says that they are not going to rely on the said documents as documents for the proof of the case against the accused, even then if such documents are necessary for the purpose of defence, the defence should be provided with a copy thereof. Denial to grant such copies which may hamper the defence of the accused, amounts to refusal to afford proper opportunity to the accused to defend his case which ultimately will vitiate the trial. Mr. Parikh also contended that simply because the documents are seized as articles, they do not cease to documents referred in Sec. 173(7) of the Code.