1 11 appln 4079.09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4079 OF 2009 Polychem Ltd. ..Applicant. v/s. Amrish Kilachand & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Prakash Naik for the Applicant. Mr. Rajiv Patil i/b Ms. Sonal Parab for the Respondent no.1. Ms. A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for Respondent no.1/State. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 On a complaint filed by the Respondent no.1, Criminal Case No.15/SW/2004 came to be registered under sections 405, 406, 409, 411, 413, 420, 477-A read with section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The offence punishable under section 413 of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Court of Sessions while all other offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 2 Grievance of the present Applicant, who is one of the accused, was that certain documents on which the complainant 2 11 appln 4079.09.doc relied were not supplied to him inspite of the mandatory provisions of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That Application was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The Revision Application No.1083 of 2006 also came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that out of ten documents which were allegedly not supplied, document nos.2 to 10 were already supplied, even document no.1 was supplied but it was alleged that it was not the correct copy of the document because there were certain changes therein. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that there is substantial compliance. 3 Undisputedly, under section 208 of Criminal Procedure Code, where a case is instituted otherwise than on a police report and it appears to Magistrate that the offence is exclusively triable by court of Sessions, the Magistrate shall furnish the statements recorded under sections 200, 202 of Criminal Procedure Code, of all persons examined by the Magistrate, the statements and confessions recorded under sections 161 or 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as any documents produced before the 3 11 appln 4079.09.doc Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely. There is no doubt that the provisions under section 208 of Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory and they have to be complied with before the case is committed to court of Sessions when it is based on a private complaint and not on the police report. The Magistrate therefore, should have supplied all the documents on which the prosecution relied upon. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that out of the 10 documents 9 were supplied and document no.1 was also supplied but allegedly with certain changes and to that extent it was not a full compliance and thus it was found that there was substantial compliance of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4 The contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant before this court is that the compliance should have been made before the cases committed to the Court of Sessions under section 208 of Criminal Procedure Code and as the documents were supplied after the cases committed to the court of Sessions, it is not the proper compliance and therefore, the orders passed by both the Courts below should be set aside. It is true that the compliance of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and should have been before the cases committed to 4 11 appln 4079.09.doc the court of Sessions but now when the documents are already supplied, if the impugned orders are set aside it will result in setting aside the order of the committal and remand of the case back to the concerned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. That will not result into acquittal or discharge of the accused. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may again commit the case to the Court of Sessions because now the provisions of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code are already complied. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, it will be futile exercise to set aside the impugned orders merely because the provisions of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied before committal of the case, though the documents are now already supplied. No prejudice is going to be caused to the Applicant because the trial is yet to commence and the documents are also supplied. In view of the circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere by invoking powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 5 In the result, the Application stands rejected. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]