H.L.ANAND, J. - (1.)At what stage of the proceedings, on a complaint by a public servant of an offence, which has been duly investigated by the Police, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the accused entitled to copies of statements recorded u/s.161 of the Code, and of documents, sought to be used at the trial is the only question that calls for decision in this petition u/s.482 of the Code.
(2.)Petitioners are facing prosecution for offences u/s.120-B read with Sections 420/468/471, I.P.C., and u/s.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, on a complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The offences, alleged against the petitioners, though duly investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code did not, however, culminate in a report u/s.173 of the Code, as an investigation by the Police would normally do, because cognizance of an offence under S.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act could not be taken by any Court except on a complaint by the competent authority by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. The complainant, respondent herein, is the competent authority for the purpose. In the course of investigation, large number of documents were seized by the Police and a number of persons were examined under S.161 of the Code. On being summoned, by the Court seized of the complaint, the petitioners sought copies of the aforesaid statements and documents on the ground that, though instituted on a complaint, the case for all practical purposes was an investigated case entitling the accused to the copies.
(3.)The application was opposed on behalf of the complainant. By an order of December 30, 1983 sought to be quashed, the trial court partly accepted the application holding that the accused would be entitled to copies, but only when the witnesses are produced in court, and when the documents are filed in the court by the complainant. It was further observed that it would be open to the complainant to request that the accused "may inspect the record if a document is voluminous and copy thereof cannot be supplied." The trial court, however, negatived the claim of the accused to copies being supplied before the commencement of the trial, as in a trial on a police report. In the course of arguments before the trial court, parties sought support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of L.R. Melwani, AIR 1970 SC 962 and Satyen Bhowmick, 1981 0 CrLJ 341 : (AIR 1981 SC 917) as well as on unreported decision of this court, Ansari, J., in the case of M.L. Gupta (Cr.R. No.256/72, D/- 5-12-1972). The case of Melwani (supra) was relied upon on behalf of the complainant for the proposition that the accused, in a case filed on a complaint, was not entitled to copies at the commencement of the trial but the trial court held that in that case, the court did not hold that the accused was not entitled to copies of the statements and documents at any stage of the trial. The trial court further observed that Ansari, J. had discussed the aforesaid decision in the case of M.L. Gupta (supra), and while holding that the accused was not entitled to copies before the commencement of the trial, he was nevertheless, entitled to the same when the witness was produced and the documents were filed in the Court. The trial Court also dealt with the case of Satyen Bhowmick (supra) which was relied upon on behalf of the accused, and read it as laying down that, notwithstanding the provision of Section 14 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the accused was entitled to copies. The aforesaid decision has also been understood by the trial court as entitling the accused to the aforesaid copies on the application of the principle that any procedure must be "right, just and fair", as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 597. The complainant has not challenged the order and has apparently reconciled to the right of the accused to be furnished with copies when the witness is produced at the trial, and when the documents are produced in court. The accused are not satisfied, and challenge the order to the extent it denies to them the right to complete disclosure of the material before the commencement of the trial, which is described as being not only contrary to the provisions is the Code, but also in contravention of the principles of natural justice, and in violation of the principle that every procedure in proceedings affecting rights, interests or liberties of a citizen must be right, just and fair".