Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges:
M.B. Shah, Brijesh Kumar & D.M. Dharmadhikari
Date of Judgement: 03/04/2002
Facts:
The prosecution story in brief is that during the period 2.4.1992 to 20.5.1992, the FIM Division, Mumbai of Syndicate Bank received funds aggregating to Rs.132.23 crores for Portfolio Management from Oil Industries Development Board, New Delhi. It was alleged that R. Sundaresan, the then Divisional Manager of the Bank and other bank officials conspired during the above said period at Mumbai along with Directors and office bearers of M/s Fair Growth Investments Ltd. and M/s Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd and by dishonestly and fraudulently abusing their position as a public servant caused wrongful gain to private parties and corresponding loss to the Syndicate Bank. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs.90.58 crores was invested for the purpose of shares/debentures from M/s Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd. and others without specific authorization from the Head Office of the Bank and without adhering to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the SEBI. On 2.6.1993, on the written complaint of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, case No. RC 1(BSC)/93-Mum. was registered under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against R. Sundaresan Divisional Manager of Syndicate Bank and K.R.N. Shenoy, Managing Director of M/s Fair Growth Investments Ltd. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the CBI in the Special Court in Special Case No.3/97 at Bombay against respondent nos.1 and 2. On 27.1.2000, respondent nos.1 and 2 filed discharge application bearing Misc. Application No.51 of 2000 and Misc. Application No.168 of 2000 before the Special Court. Pending hearing those applications, appellant sought production of additional documents, which were gathered during investigation but were not produced before the Court. That application was rejected. The appeal is followed.
Judgement:
Short question is whether prosecution can produce additional documents which are gathered during investigation, after submitting charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Special Judge is on the face of it illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 173 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is his contention that normally the Investigating Officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting report, but the Investigating Officer committed mistake in not producing certain documents as in his opinion those documents were not relevant. Thereafter, it was found that those documents were relevant so as to connect the accused with the crime. It is submitted that arguments for framing of the charge were not finally heard and, therefore, there was no justifiable reason to reject the application for production of additional documents.
As against this, Mr. P. V. Adhyaru, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that under Section 173 (5) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has to produce all the documents at the time of submitting the report. Therefore, the order passed by the Special Court cannot be said, in any way, to be illegal or erroneous.
After dissecting the Section 173 of Cr. P.C., the Court found that normally, the Investigating Officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or charge-sheet, it is always open to the Investigating Officer to produce the same with the permission of the Court. The word “shall” in Section 173(4) is not mandatory, but only directory. Further, the scheme of sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that even after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court cannot be sustained.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
Sudipta Bhowmick, 4th Year, KIIT School of Law.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS