Supreme Court: Accused in a CBI case may inspect unrelied documents and seek specific ones at trial; stage depends on the document

The Court noted that the two precedents were relied on in opposite directions. Debendra Nath Padhi held that an accused's right to seek an order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence, while Sarla Gupta found those remarks were made in the context of what counts as the record of the case under Section 227, and added that, although an accused is entitled to a list of unrelied documents at framing of charge, he is ordinarily not entitled to copies at that stage. The bench said it need not look at the decisions. It would proceed on the premise that the accused is entitled to the documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape his defence, and that the real question is at what stage they can be sought, which depends on the specific documents.

Going through the list, the Court noted that the seizure memos (clause a) had been produced. For the CBI's registers and the source information (clauses b, c and d), which cannot be divulged, the accused had not insisted, having withdrawn his request. The documents seized but not relied on (clause e) are voluminous, and the CBI had agreed to let the accused inspect them. The accused may examine them and seek production of a specific document at the appropriate time, when the relevant witness is examined by either side, and the CBI must keep the files ready at the time of trial. Alternatively, the CBI may let the accused or his authorised representative specify the documents he needs at the inspection, in a note signed by both sides, which must be produced before the Trial Court without delay, and only those documents need be kept available in court at trial.

On the minutes of the other Building Committee meetings (clause f), the CBI said only the minutes of the 11th meeting were relied on and had been supplied, while the accused said the other minutes would absolve him. If they are in the voluminous records he can inspect, production can be sought at the appropriate stage as directed. If they are not with the CBI, the accused can procure and prove them in his defence evidence, either through the Right to Information Act, 2005 or through a suitable witness, and the Trial Court will assess their evidentiary value. Clauses g, h and i were stated by the CBI to be unavailable with it, and the two architect firms in clause j were not accused, so their appointments, in the CBI's submission, would not exculpate the accused. What the CBI does not have cannot be produced by it.

The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with these directions and set aside the impugned orders to facilitate an expeditious trial. The appeal was disposed of and pending applications were rejected.