BROJENDRA NATH KOLEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. R. Bhattacharjee, J.-The short question that arises for decision in this revisional proceeding is whether at the stage of consideration of framing of charge by the Court the accused can demand production, inspection or supply of copies of documents which were seized by the police during the investigation of the case but copies of which were not supplied to the accused under section 207 Cr. P.C. on the ground that the prosecution would not rely on those documents at the trial of the case. In the present case charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 120B, 199 and 377A I.P.C. The allegation of the prosecution in short is that during a specified period there was withdrawal of a total amount of more than Rs. 4,67,900/from the banks by cheques out of which there was a defalcation of more than Rs. 55,000/- against false vouchers. The two petitioners who along with others are the accused in the case were the Directors of the Company and the allegation is that three Directors were authorised to sign cheques on behalf of the company severally and out of them one is now dead. During investigation police seized 112 cheques out of which copies of 71 cheques were supplied to the accused persons under section 207 Cr. P.C. The accused persons made prayer for supply of copies of the remaining 31 cheques which were seized during investigation. The learned Magistrate refused to give direction for supply of copies of those 31 cheques to the accused persons in view of the plea of the prosecution that the prosecution would not rely on those 31 cheques.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioners that even if it is accepted that strictly speaking under section Cr. P.C. the Magistrate is required to supply to the accused only copies of such documents as the prosecution proposes to rely upon, yet there is neither any express provision nor anything by implication in the Code of Criminal Procedure that could bar inspection or supply of copies of other documents which may be necessary for the accused persons in connection with their defence even at the stage of consideration of the question of framing of charge. In this connection, Mr. Ghosh has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, IT 1991(1) SC 464. 1 however find that this aspect of the matter is not required to be considered in this context because there is some express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would permit direction even at the stage of framing of charge, for production of document if necessary for a legitimate purpose.

(3.) At the time of submitting charge-sheet the Investigation Officer is required under sub-section (5) of section 173 Cr. P.C. to forward to the Magistrate-