G.C.Gupta, J. - (1.)By its Order dated 11th May, 1984, the Special Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No.2 of 1983 State of M.P. v. Virendra Kumar Saklecha permitted the non applicant to tender on record thirteen documents which they had earlier not filed along with the charge-sheet. The present revision filed under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeks to challenge the said order as illegal.
(2.)It appears that on 24.3.1914, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant accusing him of an offence under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(1)(e) and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A preliminary objection about the legality of the investigation was raised and submissions were being heard- The ground on which the investigation was challenged, as without authority, was that the Superintendent of Police, who is the authority, entitled to accord sanction, has not done so. The submission was based on the fact that sanction granted by the appropriate authority was not filed along with other documents with the charge- sheet. Since the non-applicants insisted that the investigation was after proper sanction they sought permission of the Court to file thirteen documents showing the sanction. This was objected to, and since the objection has been rejected, the present revision has been filed.
(3.)Even after having the advantage of hearing very illuminating and enlightening arguments of the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is unable to discover any illegality in the impugned- order. The charge sheet is presented under section 173 Cr. P.C. Sub-section (2) of this section mentions the requirement of a charge-sheet. In cases governed by section 170 of the Code, the Police Officer is also required to forward to the Magistrate along with the report all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely and statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine all its witnesses. Section 207 of the Code obliges the Magistrate to furnish, without delay, to the accused a copy of (i) the police report (ii) the F.I.R., (iii) statement recorded under section 161 (3), (iv) the confessions and statements if any, recorded under section 164 and (v) any other documents or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under section 176(3) of the Code. As far as documents and statements at (v) are concerned, the Magistrate had the option to direct the accused to have inspection thereof either personally or through his Advocate in the Court if the same is voluminous. A combined reading of these provisions would indicate that it is not the obligation of the prosecution to file all documents in their possession, though they are bound to file documents on which they propose to rely. Even if it is accepted that this is a mandatory obligation, the omission to file any particular documents along with the charge-sheet is a mere irregularity curable under section 465 of the Code. Then this provision does not prescribe subsequent filing of the document, if necessary. The whole purpose of the provision is to give adequate notice to an accused person of the material to be used against him so that he is not prejudiced during the trial. Under the circumstances, if a document has not been filed along with the charge-sheet and is filed subsequently giving the accused person sufficient time to look into it and use it for his defence, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused person. The purpose of the provision is to ensure just and for trial rather than create a situation where the trial may be delayed or not held at all. For the same reason simply because copy of a document has not been given to an accused person, it has never been held sufficient to introduce an illegality in the trial (See Narayanrao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan2.