Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No. 54/2023
RC No. 2202021E-0010
CBI Vs. J.R. International and Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT-11-000199-2024
1
12.03.2024
Present : Sh. Avanish Kumar Chand, Ld. PP for CBI.
Sh. Vikas Walia, Advocate for A-1 M/s J.R. International.
Sh. Rahul Tyagi, Advocate for A-2 Bhhanu Jaiin is appearing
through video-conferencing.
A-2 Bhhanu Jaiin is appearing through video-conferencing.
HIO SI Virender Kumar is present. He submits that IO Sh.
Sanjay Dubey, DSP has been transferred.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsels for A-1 that A-1 is already
permanently exempted in this case vide Order dated 21.01.2023.
Today the case is listed for supplying copy of list of unrelied
documents to accused persons and for arguments on the application U/s 91
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of both the accused.
Ld. PP for CBI has filed list of unrelied documents. Copies of
the said list have been supplied to the respective counsels of the accused
persons.
At this stage, counsels for both the accused have pressed their
respective applications U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the extent of the request for
supplying the unrelied documents.
Ld. PP for CBI, however objected to the said prayer submitting
inter alia that the said directions cannot be given at this stage prior to framing
of charge.
Heard. Record perused.
The aforesaid two applications were filed by the
applicant/accused and subsequently vide order dated 21.01.2023, IO was
directed to supply all the unrelied upon documents to the accused persons by
the Ld. ACMM. The said order was assailed by CBI by way of filing of Crl.
-- 1 of 3 --
CC No. 54/2023
RC No. 2202021E-0010
CBI Vs. J.R. International and Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT-11-000199-2024
2
Revision and vide order dated 12.05.2023, the said revision was allowed by
setting aside the directions given by Ld. ACMM to supply copies of unrelied
documents. However, IO was directed to supply copies of all unrelied
documents to the accused persons.
It is argued by counsels for the accused persons that the
judgment relied upon by the Ld. Revisional Court in P. Ponnusamy Vs State
of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1543 is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case as the unrelied documents are very much
required by the accused persons for proper and effective cross-examination of
the witnesses to be summoned by the prosecution for pre-charge evidence.
Perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Court reflects that
the aforesaid contention has already been dealt with by the Ld. Special Judge
while disposing off the revision petition. The relevant portion of the said
order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
“56. One of the arguments made by Ld. Counsel for the
respondents/accused person was that in their case, the
complaint has been filed by the CBI and not the police
report under section 173 Cr.P.C. It was further stated that
the complaint case being warrant triable, pre charge
evidence has to be led by the CBI, therefore, the
respondents/accused persons need the copies of all the
documents seized by CBI during the investigation,
whether CBI has relied upon or not.
57. In this regard, I may mention that the Honble Supreme
Court has not made any difference between a complaint
case or a police case as far as the supply of copies of
unrelied upon documents is concerned. Whether it is a
complaint case or a police case, the trial is said to have
been started once the charges are framed. In the present
case the impugned order would reveal that the list of
unrelied upon documents has already been provided by
the CBI to the respondents/ accused persons. That is not
under challenge. The order of Ld. Trial Court directing
CBI to supply copies of all unrelied upon documents has
-- 2 of 3 --
CC No. 54/2023
RC No. 2202021E-0010
CBI Vs. J.R. International and Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT-11-000199-2024
3
been impugned by way of present petition.
58. In view of my aforesaid discussion, it can be easily
concluded that in case of supply of unrelied upon
documents, twin conditions are to be satisfied. Firstly, the
request for supply of copies of unrelied upon documents
can be considered having regard to the Rule of relevance
at the stage of trial and not prior to that. Secondly, the
court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality
which has been withheld by the
investigator/prosecutor.”(emphasis supplied)
In view of the aforesaid contentions having already been dealt
with by the Ld. Revisional Court, the same cannot be agitated again and if the
accused are aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the remedies lies elsewhere.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the
applications are dismissed.
Sh. Sanjay Dubey, Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI has filed
the present complaint as complainant U/s 55 of the Wild Life Act (Protection)
Act 1972 against accused persons for violation of section 51 r/w 40, 49, 49B
& 58 of the Wild Life Act (Protection) Act 1972.
In view of the aforesaid, the present case is fixed for pre-charge
evidence.
At this stage, HIO has filed application for issuance of
summons to LW 1 and LW 25.
Heard. Aforesaid application is allowed.
Now to come up on 01.04.2024 for pre-charge evidence. LW 1
and LW 25 be summoned for next date of hearing.
(Mohd. Farrukh)
Special Judge, CBI-11
RADC, New Delhi/12.03.2024
-- 3 of 3 --