Accused’s Unrestricted Access To Case Diary Could Compromise Public Interest; Restriction U/S 172(3) CrPC Is Essential: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that unrestricted access of the accused to case diary could compromise the public interest especially when sensitive information like the identity of the informants is recorded in the case diary.
The Court held that the restriction on access to documents under Section 172(3) CrPC is essential to uphold the integrity of legal processes.
The bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, “prayer for unfettered right to inspect case diary entries based solely on an unsubstantiated apprehension that the family of the deceased/mother of the deceased, has been provided such access by the police or the Court is untenable and goes against settled ratio of law. Granting such broad access could potentially compromise public interest, especially when sensitive information like the identity of the informants is recorded in the case diary…Therefore, the restriction outlined in Sub Section (3) of Section 172 Cr.P.C. is essential to uphold the integrity of the legal processes and safeguard public interest.”
Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema appeared for the appellant and Spl. Public Prosecutor, CBI Ravi Kamal Gupta appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner contended that the documents listed in the seizure memo are essential for the Petitioner's defence, as they were relied upon by the CBI in its reports. The CBI's claim that certain documents are 'unrelied upon' was questioned. The petitioner has been provided with some documents but argues she is entitled to all. There's a request to access case diaries and police files to understand if initial investigation lapses affected the case. The Court was urged to grant access to the crucial documents.
The Petitioner filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order passed by the Court of Special Judge, CBI which dismissed her application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
The Court observed, “Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. stands as a cornerstone in safeguarding the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial. It ensures that the accused is informed of, and supplied all material, ‘relied upon’, by the prosecution, to prevent any surprise introduction of crucial evidence during trial that could deprive him or her of an opportunity to mount an effective defence. The failure to comply with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. would severely prejudice and be detrimental to the accused, potentially vitiating the entire trial.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies In Criminal Trials vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.’ 2021 (10) SCC 598 and observed, “along with furnishing statements, documents and other material objects under Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of seized but ‘unrelied upon’ materials be also provided to the accused, but, the accused could only seek those ‘unrelied upon’ documents under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., and that too only at an appropriate stage, during the trial, however they cannot be furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. at this stage of the trial.”
The Court noted that the documents sought by the petitioner are not found mentioned even in the list of documents and articles ‘relied upon’ by the CBI in the charge sheet as well as the ‘untraced report’ filed by it, lending credence to the submissions made and undertaking given by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the CBI that these documents have not been relied upon by the prosecution.
The Court further stated that in case, some documents are relevant and may impact the case of an accused, even if not relied upon by the prosecution, recourse under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would remain available to her at the appropriate stage of the trial.
According to the Court, in the light of the statutory disentitlement provided in Section 172(3) of the Cr.P.C. the said prayer was untenable.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Kalyani Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 : PHHC : 057550)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Adv. R.S. Cheema, Adv. S.S. Narula, Adv. Siddarth Bhukkal, Adv. Satish Sharma, Adv. Harish Mehla and Adv. Prabhat Gupta
Respondent: Spl. Public Prosecutor CBI Ravi Kamal Gupta, Adv. Amarjeet
