High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Section 207 Cr.P.C. Mandates Only the Supply of Documents Relied Upon by the Prosecution – Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Limitation on Access to 'Unrelied Upon' Documents

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified the scope of document disclosure under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The court dismissed a petition seeking access to documents listed as 'unrelied upon' by the prosecution in a criminal case involving the petitioner, Kalyani Singh.

The central legal issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of Section 207 Cr.P.C., which concerns the provision of documents to the accused. The petitioner contended that all documents seized, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, should be made available to her to ensure a fair trial.

The petitioner, Kalyani Singh, challenged an order from the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, which denied her application for access to certain documents described in the seizure memo but marked as 'unrelied upon' by the prosecution. She argued that these documents were essential for her defense and contended that their withholding violated her right to a fair trial.

Scope of Section 207 Cr.P.C.: Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul noted that Section 207 serves to inform the accused of evidence that will be used against them, preventing surprises during the trial. However, it does not extend to documents that the prosecution does not intend to rely on.

Supreme Court Precedents: Referencing the Supreme Court's directive in "In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies In Criminal Trials," the High Court observed that while transparency is critical, it does not necessitate the provision of all seized documents at the pre-trial stage.

Right to Access Documents: The court pointed out that documents deemed 'unrelied upon' by the prosecution could be requested under Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the trial, but not at the stage of framing charges.

Protection of Investigation Integrity: The judgment emphasized the importance of safeguarding sensitive information, such as the identities of informants and the integrity of the ongoing investigation, which justified restrictions on the disclosure of certain documents.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower court’s decision that the prosecution need only supply documents it relies upon. Documents classified as 'unrelied upon' remain undisclosed at the pre-trial stage.

Date of Decision: April 25, 2024

Kalyani Singh Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh

Similar News