Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

Right to Fair Trial Does Not Entitle Accused to 'Unrelied Upon' Documents at Investigation Stage: P&H High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by Kalyani Singh against the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, challenging the refusal to supply documents deemed 'unrelied upon' by the prosecution. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul held that the accused's entitlement under Section 207 Cr.P.C. is limited to documents "relied upon" by the prosecution.

The petitioner sought quashing of an order dismissing her application under Section 207 Cr.P.C., which demanded access to specific documents listed in a seizure memo but categorized as 'unrelied upon' by the CBI in the charge sheet. She contended that her rights to a fair trial were being compromised by not having access to these documents.

The core issue revolved around whether documents listed as 'unrelied upon' in the CBI's seizure memo should be made accessible to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the entire seizure memo had been utilized by the CBI, therefore all documents within should be supplied. Conversely, the CBI maintained that only documents explicitly 'relied upon' in their charge sheet were relevant and had been shared accordingly.

Scope of Section 207 Cr.P.C.: Justice Kaul emphasized the role of Section 207 in ensuring a fair trial by mandating the disclosure of all 'relied upon' materials to the accused. The judge referenced the Supreme Court’s directives, which allow the accused to request 'unrelied upon' documents during trial under Section 91 Cr.P.C., but not at the pre-trial stage.

Compliance with Supreme Court Orders: The court noted that the CBI had complied with the Supreme Court's order by providing the petitioner all materials that were 'relied upon' and additionally supplied to the family of the deceased.

Distinction Between 'Relied Upon' and 'Unrelied Upon' Documents: The prosecution clarified that only specific entries from the seizure memo were 'relied upon' and that the documents sought by the petitioner did not fall into this category.

Statutory Restrictions Under Section 172(3) Cr.P.C.: Justice Kaul ruled out the supply of case diaries or police files as they are explicitly protected under the Cr.P.C. to prevent misuse and protect the integrity of ongoing investigations.

Ensuring Fairness Without Compromising Legal Protocols: The court concluded that while the petitioner's desire to access all documents might stem from a place of seeking thoroughness, it does not align with the statutory framework designed to balance fairness with procedural integrity.

Decision: The High Court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner already had access to all documents necessary for a fair defense as mandated by law. The petition was dismissed, underscoring that the right to a fair trial does not automatically extend to the entitlement of all documents at the investigative stage.

Date of Decision: April 25, 2024

Kalyani Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Latest Legal News