BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ti-T«;i - Cr. M. P. No..(^ Zp Of.2010 ~7~^ PETITION UNDER SECTION 48_2_OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. APPLICANT r--w ...^•^l^ ••-"^"^fl -^\'^-<^ ^T:w-..b%^ VERSUS NON-APPLICANT ^y^ /^>"-^\ [•(S-S-^i^J Lokesh Agrawal, S/o Satyanarayan, aged about 44 years, Profession - Business, R/o Kotararoad Raigarh, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through : The District Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10 passed in Criminal Revision No. .,134/2mo by the III Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) (Shri N.K. S. Thakur) Raigarh, the applicant named above raost respectfully begs to prefer this petition on following facts and ground amongst others: - HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinate BenchLMQnT*teShri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. A Applicant Non-apDlicant Cr.M.P.N0.920of2010 Lokesh Agrawal VCTSUS State of Chhattisgarh (Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Present:- Shri S. K. Thwari,counsel fwthe appHcant. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Tor the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 08-12-2010) Hearcl. (2) This petition under Section 482 of ttw Cr.P.C. is dlrected against the order dated-M-10-2010 passed by the 3 Additional Ses^ons Judge/ F.T.C., Raigarh in Criminal Revision No.134 of 2010, by which, revisron petition against rejection of his application for supply of documents vide order dated 03-09-2010 passed by the Chief Judkrfat Magistrate, Raigarh ^ in Criminal Case No.618 of2010, has been upheld. (3) Leamed counsel for the applteant submitted that theapplicant is being prosecuted for alleged commisston of offence under Section 407 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the applicant is entitled to know each and every document sought to be used by the prosecution against him, in this case, which may ultimately result in conviction. Leamed counsel for the applicant submitted that at the time of filing of charge sheet, the prosecution did not supply large number of "<WWftaBffiasifmeirtf! ''<\\'<. ,-f'~ documents though enlisted along with the charge sheet meaning thereby that they are proposed to be relied upon bythe prosecution against the applicant to prove the chaiges alleged. Though, an application for supply of those documents was moved, the trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 03-09-2010 on the ground that the records are voluminous and secondly that they are confldential in nature. On revision preferred, the same has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that ordinarily, the prosecutkm is required to supply each and every document forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report and non-supply of documents in a given case in only an exception to the general mle. He submits that the Court below has rejected the application by vaguely recording that records are voluminous ignoring that only one part i.e. a Register containir^i 706 pages is voluminous. Other documents' which have not been supplied are not voluminous, and therefore, rejection of the appticant's application is itlegal. His further submis^on is that order directing inspectiOTi will not satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justtee, as contents of the regjster are extremely relevant and accOTding to the order of the leamed Court below, this is the most material documentary evtelence to prove the case of the prosecution. (4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the order passed by the Magistrate and the revishwial Court does not warrant any interference as in view of the provision contained in Section 207 of the _Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is competent to direct the inspection instead of supply, in case, he satisfied that any of the documents fprwarded along -«EIS';SES:s,-^3 ^aiSBj'^SB-sft-sgaes;,,.;^ wtth the Police report te votuminous. Leamed counsel sutMnitted that the applicant's interest have been fully (M'otected in directing that the applicant would be atlowed inspection of the docunrrents. He submits that unless the applicant inspects the records, at this stage, it is hypothetical submission that all the relevant documents have not been supplied to the applicant. (5) From the order passed by the trial Court, 1 find that the main operative reason for rejecting the application for suppty of variois ctocuments, which were foiwarded to the Magistrate along with the report under Sectton 173 of the Cr.P.C. are that they are votuminous and confidential. In Uie applteation filed by the appticant, prayer was made for supply of various documents whteh were forwarded to the Magstrate along wittrltie-feport, which also included a register in 706 pages. However, other documents which have been mentioned in the application, the details of which have been given in the final report cannot be said to be voluminous. Another reason for rejecting the applfoation that 'L as the documents appear to be confidential, they cannot be supplied, to say the least, is completely misconceived. Alt the documents whksh are proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charges cannot be withheld on the ground that ttiey are confidential in nature. Therefoce, this approach of the trial Court is contrary to law and cannot be uphekl. Therefore, rther documents except regi^er in 706 pages are liable to be supptied to the applteant immediately. (6) In so far as supply of regi^er in 706 pages is concerned, the Magistrate has passed an order allowing applicant to inspect the concemed records. Second proviso to Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. provides that if the M^istrate is satisfled that any document forwarded to the Magistrate atong with the report is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will onty be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court. Therefbre, it is within the jurisdkrtiCTi of the Magistrate to pass such an order of tnspectkMi instead of supply of the vduminous documents. It is however to be kept in mind that such a rule is an exception, and therefore, in appropriate cases, even after inspection, ifthe accused insist on demand, the principles of natural justtee would require suppty of those relevant documents which the accused demands after inspection. (7) In the considered opinion of this Court, if after inspection of the voluminous record i.e. Register in 7 pages, the applicant still insist for supply bf certain relevant extracts of the said register, the prosecution is obliged to supply those documents to the applicant enable him to defend himself from the charges of commission of offence under Section 407 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/7 ofthe Essential Commodities Act. Upon proof of charges, the applteant may be sentenced to undergo rigorous jmprisonment. Therefore, under these circumstances, the applicant is entitled. to relevant extracts of the documents whteh the prosecution propo^s to rely in support ofthe charges framed against the applicant. ..'-,, (8) In the result, this petition is partly allowed. Irt so far as documents exce|rt register containing 706 pages, as enlisted in the applfcation are concemed, they shalt besupplied to the applicant. In so far as supply of copy of the Register is concemed, as the Magistrate has already ordered inspection, it woukl be open for the applicant to inspect the dwuments. However, if after inspection of this Register, the applicant demands supply of retevant pages of the said Register on the ground that it is incriminating in nature, or otherwise relevant, the same shall also be supplied to the applicant. The triat Court shall ateo ensure that befwe examination of any prosecution witnesses, necessary documerts are supplied to the applicant well in advance. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge