PRAVIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant herein is accused in C. C. No. 5 of 2003 against whom charge has been framed by the learned Special Judge Margao on 9-11-2005 under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. In this petition, the said accused has assailed the common order dated 27-12-2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Margao.

(2.) THE applicant/accused filed an application dated 24-11-2005 under Section 207 r/w Section 173 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code, for short)praying therein that the respondent-CBI be directed to give copies of documents to him namely, the document enlisted at serial no. 6 containing pages 1 to 480. In reply filed to the said application the respondent had stated that the accused was supplied with the copies of relevant pages of the said file at serial no. 6 and the original was submitted to the Court and, therefore, the application was without substance. The learned Special Judge rejected the said application observing that the records showed that the CBI had furnished all the documents to the accused as required under Section 207 of the Code. Admittedly, the said file enlisted at item no. 6 of the list of documents containing pages 1 to 480 was sent by the respondent-CBI along with the charge-sheet filed against the accused. Admittedly, copies from page 1 to 480 of the said file have not been given to the accused contending that only those copies of the pages which would be relied upon by the respondent, have been given to the accused. Section 207 of the Code makes a provision for the supply to the accused of the copy of the police report and other documents mentioned therein. In other words, the accused is entitled to copies of not only the police report but also copies of the F. I. R. , the statements recorded, confessional statements as well as any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173 of the Code. Admittedly, the said file at serial no. 6 containing pages 1 to 480 is a file which has been sent to the Special Judge along with the charge-sheet of which neither copies have been furnished nor an inspection provided of the said file to the accused. It is also not known as to which of the pages from 1 to 480 have been provided to the accused and which of the pages would be relied upon by the respondent in the course of the trial. Section 207 of the Code provides that the documents sent along with the charge-sheet have got to be furnished to the accused ana in case any of the document is found to be voluminous, inspection of the same has got to the provided to the accused either personally or through pleader in Court. It appears that the learned Special Judge completely lost sight of the above provisions of Section 207 of the Code. The said file at serial no. 6 having been sent along with the charge-sheet/police Report, the accused was entitled either to inspect the same or be furnished with copies thereof. Since the said file contains pages 1 to 480, it is rather voluminous, the ends of justice would be served by providing inspection of the same to the accused either personally or through pleader in court, as contemplated by the second proviso below Section 207 of the Code.

(3.) THE accused also filed another application-Exh. 29 on the same day under section 91 of the Code which came to be dismissed only because another application filed under the same Section was dismissed by the learned Special judge on 9-11-2005 prior to framing of charge. When the said application was filed under Section 91 of the Code, charge was not framed against the accused and presumably the application of the accused filed under Section 91, prior to framing of charge, was rejected because of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath padhi which has again been followed by the Supreme Court in S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another. The supreme Court has held that a person who is sought to be made an accused has no right to produce any documents, or evidence in defence at that stage and the magistrate cannot be asked to look into the documents produced by the accused at that stage.