Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Lallan Ojha & Others on 17 May, 2012
COURT OF MR. TALWANT SINGH
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI-01
NEW DELHI
CC No. 2/2012
CBI V/s Lallan Ojha & Others
RC No. AC1 2012-A0001/CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s Section 7, 8, 10, 12 and
13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act
ORDER ON ALL PENDING APPLICATIONS UNDER
SECTION 207 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ORDER
1. As per the charge-sheet, accused No.1 is A. K. Srivastava, accused no.2 is Lallan Ojha and accused no.3 is Hemant Gandhi. There are two more accused. By this order applications moved by accused no. 1, 2 and 3 U/s 207 CrPC for supply of documents are disposed off.
2. The first application under consideration was moved by accused no. 1 on 20.04.2012 praying for supply of recorded conversations of all telephone numbers of Hemant Gandhi (A-3) and Lallan Ojha (A-2), which were taped from 22.12.2011 to 02.01.2012. In this application accused no. 1/applicant has also asked for supply of complete file of his sanction for prosecution to confirm whether competent authority had applied its mind before giving sanction. The last prayer in this application is to supply photocopies of all the pages of the note pads seized from Ms. Rekha Rani.
3. Accused no. 1 has moved another application U/s 207 CrPC on Page No. 1 of 19 27.04.2012 in which he has prayed for supply of mirror image/replica of the hard disc/discs on which the alleged intercepted calls were recorded containing all the intercepted calls and not only the selected 96 calls. The second request in this application is for supply of minutes of the Review Committee in respect of interception of calls. Accused no. 1 has also prayed for supply of his arrest memo, which was filed on record as well as supplied to him. The next prayer is for supply of transcript of call no.91 and the last request is for supply of statements of the accused persons recorded by CBI during investigation.
4. The last application moved by accused no. 1 is dated 04.05.2012 in which request has been made for supply of source verification report; preliminary inquiry; applications made to Fortis Escorts Hospital by the officials of the CBI between 02.01.2012 to 13.01.2012; the extract of the case diary as well as the movement register of CBI officials deputed to Fortis Escorts Hospital during the said period; record showing movement of team which apprehended accused nos. 2 and 3 on 02.01.2012; call details of the mobile phones of the IO as well as of the mobile phones of investigating team members during 02.01.2012 to 13.01.2012 and documents regarding status of information stored in the laptops of the accused persons.
5. On behalf of accused no. 2, three applications have been moved. The first application is dated 19.04.2012. At the time of arguments, this application was not pressed. The next application moved on behalf of accused no. 2 is dated 30.04.2012. In this application accused no. 2 has prayed for supply of complete sanction order file, supply of hard discs of Page No. 2 of 19 laptop, desktop or electronic typewriter on which the FIR, statements recorded by IO U/s 161 CrPC, letters addressed to Sh. R K Singh of MHA as well as to the service providers of mobile phones, communication to Special Unit of CBI, CFSL, letter of requisition of witnesses in this case and charge-sheet/seizure memos or any other documents were typed and placed in the charge-sheet. A request was also made to direct the prosecution to keep hard discs in a controlled environment on which 96 intercepted calls were originally recorded.
6. In the last application dated 07.05.2012, accused no. 2 has requested to direct CBI to provide the phone records/recording of the two mobile phones of Deputy SP Ram Singh and voice specimen from S-1 to S-8 as these files cannot be opened in the copy of the CD provided by the prosecution. Accused no. 2 has also asked for correspondence between Special Unit of CBI with ACU-I, CGO Complex; copy of the complaint; panchnama details of the case property being mobile phones imported by accused Anand Aggarwal and Dilip Aggarwal and site map preferred at the time of alleged recoveries.
7. Accused no. 3 has moved two applications. The first application was moved on 19.04.2012 and he has prayed for supply of whole of the tape recorded conversations. The second request is to supply copy of sanction for prosecution in respect of accused no. 1. This copy was supplied. The third request is to supply all the documents placed before the sanctioning authority in respect of sanction for prosecution of A-1. The fourth request is to supply hard copies of the relied upon documents, which was supplied in court to all the accused. Another application was moved on 04.05.2012. The prayers Page No. 3 of 19 made in this application are to supply details of applicant 's mobile phone locations till midnight of 02.01.2012, tower locations of all the mobile phones of CBI officers on 02.01.2012 till midnight, tower locations of mobile phones of witnesses at the time of arrest of accused no.2 and 3 and their movement upto CGO Complex.
8. CBI has not filed written replies to the applications moved by these three accused persons. Arguments have been heard. Written submissions have been also filed on behalf of accused no. 1 & 2.
9. Ld. Senior Advocate for accused no. 1 has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) S J Chowdhary Vs. State, 1984 Cr LJ 864 [Para 5].
(ii) Dharambir Khattar Vs. State, (148) 2008 DLT 289 [Para 12 (v) & 14 (v)].
(iii) Shakuntala Vs. State of Delhi (139) 2007 DLT 178 [Para 4].
(iv) Sidharth Vashisht Vs. State AIR 2010 SC2352 [Para 92].
I have gone through these judgments. These judgments have been discussed in detail in relevant paras.
10. During arguments on behalf of accused no. 1, it was stressed that as per the call detail records (D-49 and D-50), more calls were intercepted during the relevant period other than 96 calls handed over to the IO by Special Unit, CBI. Hence, mirror image of the hard disc, on which all intercepted calls were recorded, is required. Call no. 91 is not there in the CD. During arguments the CD was played in court and it was found that the recording of call no. 90 and 91 is same. However, the files size is slightly different. Hence, there is no separate transcription. Page No. 4 of 19
11. Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for accused no.1 has also prayed for supply of minutes of the Review Committee, which was supposed to review the permission granted for recording the telephone calls of the accused. Reference has also been made to relevant Rules framed in Indian Telegraph Rules. It has been also submitted that as per the charge-sheet, statements of the accused persons were also recorded but the same have not been supplied, so directions may be issued to prosecution to supply the said statements. It has also been submitted that complete sanction file, containing all the documents which were placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction, is also required to ensure whether the said sanctioning authority had full facts before it and the sanction was granted after due application of mind. Complete photocopies of the notepads of Ms. Rekha Rani, who was scheduling the appointments with accused no. 1, has been also prayed for. As per prosecution, photocopies of the relied upon notes have been supplied and all the note pads are available on judicial record, so the accused persons may inspect the same.
12. Accused no. 2 has argued in person. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his applications:
(i)Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766:
"The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the code is to enable the Court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that earlier stage would clinch the issue. Why should the Court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings? Hence, we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even material which the accused may produce at the stage Page No. 5 of 19 contemplated in Section 227 of the Code."
(ii) Sangeeta Kalra V/s State 138 (2007) DLT 535:
"I consider that while framing charges, the Trial Court must take into account the entirety of the case, all documents which are brought to its notice including the correspondence between the parties and thereafter should decide whether there was case made out or the court was being used as a tool. I consider it is a fit case where criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. I, therefore, hereby quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, in FIR No. 518/2000 Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi".
(iii) Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s Dattatrya G. Hedge Crl. Appeal No. 518 of 2006 decided on 11th January 2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"The presumption of innocence is a human right. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Although India is not bound by the aforementioned Convention and as such it may not be necessary like the countries forming European countries to bring common law into land with the Convention, a balancing of the accused rights and the interest of the society is required to be taken into consideration. In India, however, subject to the statutory interdicts, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. For the aforementioned purpose the nature of the offence, seriousness as also gravity thereof may be taken into consideration."
(iv) Mohd Akram Ansari V/s Chief Election Officer & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4981 of 2006 decided on 4th December 2007 by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"In this connection we would like to say that there is a presumption in law that a Judge deals with all the points which have been pressed before him. It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. Naturally a Judge will deal only with the points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be presumed that the appellant gave up the other points; otherwise he would have dealt with them also. If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of the Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttal presumption. In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to him to file an application before the same learned Judge (or Bench) which deliver the impugned judgment, and if he satisfies the Judge (or Bench) that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the impugned judgment, it is open to the concerned Court to pass appropriate Page No. 6 of 19 orders, including an order of review. However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgment of the Court below. The party who has this grievance must approach the same Court which passed the judgment, and urge that the other points were pressed but not dealt with.
Since no other point except the point of profit has been dealt with in the impugned judgment of the High Court, the presumption is that no other point was pressed before the High Court, even though the point may have been contained in the election petition. We do not allow these points to be raised here."
(v) Sh. Parimal Gowala And Ors V/s State of Tripura 2007 CriLJ 2394:
"The presence of the eye-witness PW-1, Kuni Gour (informant) at the time of occurrence at about 11 p.m. At the house of the victim is very doubtful, inasmuch as, PW3 Smt. Parbati Gour who is the wife of the PW-1, Kuni Gour stated that her husband PW-1 Kuni Gour did not return home from marked and at about 11 p.m. Somebody came to her house and called her father-in-law and as she was alone, she kept mum according to her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. Ext. D-3 by the J/O i.e. PW9 Sh. Pradip Kumar Bhowmik, and proved by the I/O in the course of his examination before the trial Court. The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C no doubt cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration but can be used for the purpose of contradiction."
(vi) Mukund Lal V/s Union of India AIR 1989 SC 144, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 524:
"The public interest requirement from the stand point of the need to ensure a fair trial for an accused is more then sufficiently met by the power conferred on the court, which is the ultimate custodian of the interest of justice and can always be trusted to be vigilant to ensure that the interest of accused persons standing the trial, is fully safeguarded.
There would be no prejudice or failure of justice to the accused person since the court can be trusted to look into the police diary for the purpose of protecting his interest. Therefore, the public interest requirement from the perspective of safeguarding the interest of all persons standing trial is not compromised."
(vii) K C Singh Vs. P Bagchi, Cr. Appeal No. 976/2010 decided on 10.08.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
"Since the sanction for prosecution accorded against the appellant Page No. 7 of 19 is invalid, the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge is bad in law in view of Section 19 of the P C Act, therefore, the entire trial stands vitiated for want of a valid sanction. Thus, under the circumstances, I am constrained to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of learned Special Judge dated 24.07.2010 and consequent order on sentence."
(viii) Ramesh Lal Jain Vs. Naginder Singh Rana Cr. Appeal No. 691/2003 decided on 28.10.2005 by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
" It is also beyond any cavil of doubt that an order granting or refusing sanction must be preceded by application of mind on the part of the appropriate authority. If the complainant or accused can demonstrate such an order granting or refusing sanction to be suffering from non-application of mind, the same may be called in question before a competent court of law. Evidently, the requirement of obtaining a sanction under Section 197 CrPC from the State in relation to the Respondent who at the material time was a Sub inspector of Police might not have arisen if the notification issued by the State in this behalf on or about 05.05.1983 is read in proper context."
"The expression 'public order' has a distinct connotation. Investigation into the offence under the Essential Commodities Act may not be equated with the maintenance of public order as is commonly understood. The activities of a single individual giving rise to irregularities of maintenance of books of accounts as regard an essential commodity or resorting to the black marketing, unless a volatile situation arises therefrom, cannot lead to disturbance of public peace and tranquility, which are essential requisites of a 'public order'."
13 I have gone through these judgments. The first judgment in the matter of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration (supra) has been over ruled in the matter of Siddhartha Vashisht (supra).There is no dispute regarding the ratios laid down in all the remaining judgments but they are of no help to accused no. 2 at the present stage as discussed later.
14. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 has also addressed arguments in support of his applications.
Page No. 8 of 19
15. As per Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, this case was registered on source information. The Special Unit of CBI was approached to supply any material related to these accused persons and accordingly recording of 96 calls was supplied by the Special Unit vide seizure memo D-20. It has been also submitted that Review Committee Minutes are irrelevant as the calls were recorded w.e.f. different dates till 06.01.2012 within 60 days of the initial period of sanction, so there was no question of Review Committee coming in picture during the said period of 60 days. It has been also submitted that both calls no. 90 and 91 are available in the CD. The transcript of call no. 91 was not prepared as it is copy of call no. 90.
16. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has also relied upon judgment in the matter of Dharambir Khattar Vs. CBI, (148) 2008 DLT 289. As far as the request of accused no.2 regarding the laptop and the computers on which the documentation related to the case had been prepared is concerned, it has been submitted on behalf of CBI that the same have not been relied upon. Hence, the mirror images/replicas of the hard discs of laptops and the computers cannot be supplied to the accused persons. As far as the request to produce the complete sanction file is concerned, Ld. Sr. PP has relied upon a judgment in the matter of Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab [2007 (1) SCC 1].
17. Now let us take the documents requested for by accused persons one by one. Accused no. 1 in his application dated 20.04.2012 in para 4 has prayed for complete record of all uninterrupted telephonic conversations of the telephones put under surveillance by CBI between Page No. 9 of 19 22.12.2011 till 02.01.2012. In this regard, Ld. Sr. PP has submitted that CBI is relying upon 96 recorded conversations and rest of the conversations have not been relied upon. Hence at this stage other telephonic conversations, except the 96 relied upon calls, cannot be supplied. In my view at the pre-charge stage the accused are only entitled to the copies of the relied upon documents. Since, the CBI has relied upon 96 calls, so only these 96 calls can be called the ' relied upon documents ' and at the pre-charge stage, accused are entitled to only these 96 calls. It is needless to stress that in the matter of Dharambir Khattar (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court has held that at the pre-charge stage only the relied upon documents have to be supplied to accused/applicants.
18. In para no. 5 of the application dated 20.04.2012, the accused no. 1/applicant has prayed for supplying him complete file of sanction of his prosecution to see whether competent authority has applied its mind before giving sanction. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab [2007 (1) SCC 1] at this stage the court has to see whether the sanction order is on record or not and the circumstances under which the sanction was granted will be considered at the time of trial. Moreover, whether the sanctioning authority had applied its mind or not; it is a matter which can be considered at the stage of trial.
19. After going through the judgment in the matter of Prakash Singh Badal (supra), in my view, at this stage the prosecutionsanction order of accused no. 1 is on record and copy of the same has been supplied to him. Page No. 10 of 19 Whether the said sanction was granted after due application of mind or not, the same is a question to be raised during trial, if the said stage arrives.
20. In para no. 6 of the application dated 20.04.2012, the accused no. 1 /applicant has prayed for supply of photocopies of all pages of the note pads seized from Ms. Rekha Rani. As per CBI, reliance has been placed on some of the notings in the said note pads and the copies of the same have been supplied to all the accused. However, all the note pads are available in the judicial record. I hereby grant permission to the accused/applicant to inspect the said notepads. If required, he may take copies of the same as per rules.
21. In the application dated 27.04.2012, the accused no. 1/applicant has requested for supply of mirror image or replica of hard disc/discs on which alleged intercepted calls were recorded containing all the intercepted calls and not only selected 96 calls as stated in para 4(a) of the application. As per CBI, reliance has been placed only on 96 recorded calls and the audio files of said calls have been already supplied to all the accused persons. At this stage, there is no ground to supply the mirror image/replica of the hard disc/discs containing all the intercepted calls.
22. In my view accused no. 1/applicant is not entitled to the mirror image/replica of the hard disc/discs in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Dharambir Khattar Vs. State (Supra). In the said case, hard discs were seized but they were not relied upon documents in one of the cases; whereas in the present case the hard disc has not been seized.It is pertinent to mention here that certificate U/s 65(B) of the India Evidence Act Page No. 11 of 19 has been filed on record by CBI and copies of the same have been supplied to all the accused persons in support of the data contained in the said CD in which the recorded 96 calls were supplied to the accused persons.
23. With due respect the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of S J Chowdhary Vs. State (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as in the said case the expert was provided all the 40 photographs for forming an opinion but later on the prosecution had relied only upon 33 photographs, so it was ordered that copies of all the photographs be supplied to the accused persons who had demanded the remaining 9 photographs. In the present, case right from the beginning the prosecution has relied upon the recordings of 96 intercepted calls and copies of the same have been supplied to all the accused persons along with certificate U/s 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act.
24. In para 4(b) of the application dated 27.04.2012 accused no. 1/applicant has requested for supply of minutes of the Review Committee which reviewed the alleging intercepted material in view of Rule 419 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PUCL case. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that the telephonic calls of the accused persons were recorded from different dates but the period of initial sanction for 60 days had not expired. Hence, there was no question of the Review Committee reviewing the said recordings.
25. The contention of the CBI has force in it. The sanction orders for recording on record show that in none of the case the recordings have been done for more than 60 days hence, the Review Committee had no Page No. 12 of 19 occasion to review the said recordings. So there is no ground to supply any such minutes. Moreover, the said alleged minutes have not been relied upon by CBI in support of its case. Hence, accused cannot be supplied copies of the same at this stage in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359 and in the matter of Sidhartha Vashist vs. State AIR 2010 SC 2352 as well as the recent judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ashok Chawla Vs. Ram Chander Garvan, WP (Crl.) 1429/2010 decided on 28.02.2011.
26. Accused no. 1/applicant has requested for supply of his arrest memo, which was duly supplied and the original arrest memo has been filed on record. In para no. 4(c) (i), the applicant has prayed for supply of transcript and recording of call no. 91. The recording of call no. 90 and 91 was played in court. Both the recordings are same although the file size is slightly different. As per CBI, both these calls are same and only one transcript has been prepared, which has been already supplied to all the accused persons. The reason for two recordings of the call between the same people may be that the recording was done from two different sources or a file was copied twice. Accused/applicant may agitate this question during trial if the said stage arrives.
27. In para 4 (d) of the application, accused no. 1/applicant has prayed for supply of statements of the accused persons which were recorded by the IO but not supplied. Ld. Sr. PP has submitted that CBI has not relied upon any such statement hence; there is no question of supplying such copy Page No. 13 of 19 of statements.
28. In the last application dated 04.05.2012, accused no. 1/applicant has prayed for supply of source verification report and supply of preliminary inquiry report. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has submitted that this FIR was registered on the basis of source information and conducting a preliminary inquiry is an internal matter and no reliance has been placed on the said inquiry; hence the same cannot be supplied to the accused persons. In my view if a document has not been relied upon by CBI, the same cannot be supplied to accused at this stage in view of the judgments of Hon 'b le Apex Court and High Court of Delhi cited above.
29. In para 3(c) of this application, accused no. 1/applicant has prayed for supply of applications made to Fortis Escorts Hospital between 02.01.2012 to 13.01.2012 by IO; in para 3(d), the accused/applicant has prayed for supply of extract of the case diary and the movement register of CBI regarding officials deputed to Fortis Escorts Hospital during this period. Ld. Sr. PP has submitted that no copy of the case diary can be supplied to accused persons under any circumstances and moreover CBI is not relying upon any of the applications moved to Fortis Escorts Hospital or the movement registers hence, the said copies can not be supplied.
30. Similarly in para 3(e) and 3(f) of this application, the accused no.1 has prayed for records showing the movements of the team which had apprehended accused Hemant Gandhi and Lallan Ojha on 02.01.2012 along with relevant extracts of the case diary. The stand of the CBI is same and in my opinion no such copies can be supplied at this stage in view of the fact Page No. 14 of 19 that the said documents have not been relied upon by CBI in support of its case.
31. In para 3(g) , accused no. 1/applicant has prayed for supply of call details of the IO as well as the other team members to show that certain documents recovered from his house were not intentionally filed including the letters addressed to CVC and other superior officers written by the applicant. Again neither the CBI had relied upon said call details of IO and other team members nor there is any occasion to supply the same to the accused at this stage.
32. Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for accused no. 1/applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shakuntala Vs. State of Delhi (Supra) pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra on 26.02.2007. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ashok Chawla Vs. Ram Chander Garvan(supra), the ratio of the earlier judgment in the matter of Shakuntala Vs. State of Delhi (supra) is not applicable.
33. Ld. Senior Advocate for accused no.1 has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sidhartha Vashist vs. State (Supra). With due respect, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that only such documents can be supplied to accused, which in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor are relied upon. As stated earlier, Sr. PP for CBI is not relying upon any other documents except the documents which are already on record. Hence, this judgment is of Page No. 15 of 19 no help to accused 1/applicant.
34. Accused no. 1/applicant has also prayed that the original hard disc containing 96 relied upon calls as well as the other calls during the relevant period may be ordered to be preserved. This submission has been made on the basis of observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Dharambir Khattar Vs. CBI (supra). In my considered view, the said ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the said matter is not applicable to the facts of this case because in Dharambir Khattar's matter (supra) the four hard discs were seized by CBI in Shameet Mukherjee's case and parts of those calls were relied upon in other three connected matters also; so under those circumstances where the hard discs were seized by CBI but not relied upon, the Hon'ble High Court had ordered that the said hard discs be preserved. In the present case, no hard disc has been seized. Recordings of 96 calls were received by IO of this case in response to his letter to the Special Unit and the said recordings were accompanied by a certificate U/s 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act. CBI has to prove authenticity of the said calls during trial, if the case reaches that stage. The applications moved by accused no. 1 are accordingly disposed off.
35. Accused no. 2 has not pressed his application dated 19.04.2012. He has moved another application dated 30.04.2012. In para no. 2 of this application he has also raised question regarding recording of call no. 91 and its transcript in para no.3 his application, which has been already dealt with.
36. In para no. 4 of application, accused no.2 has referred to the hard drives containing all the calls out of which 96 calls were relied upon and Page No. 16 of 19 he has prayed for issuing directions to CBI to handle those hard discs carefully and to keep them in aseptic environment subject to the direction of this Court. This aspect had been already dealt with and in my view reliance on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dharambir Khattar Vs. CBI (supra) is misplaced as in the said case the original hard discs were seized by CBI but in the present case the IO had only received a CD containing recordings of 96 calls along with certificate U/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act from the Special Unit of CBI. Neither any hard disc was seized nor the same was sent for examination to FSL as was done in Dharambir Khattar Vs. CBI (supra).
37. In para no. 5 of the application dated 30.04.2012, accused no.2/applicant has prayed for supply of complete sanction order file. As stated earlier, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Prakash Singh Badal (supra), the complete sanction file is not required at this stage and the sanction order regarding prosecution of accused no. 2 is already on record and copy of the same has been supplied.
38. In para no. 6 of the application, the accused no. 2 has prayed for supply of hard discs of laptop, desktop and electronic typewriter on which the FIR, statements, letters, charge-sheet and other documents related to the case were typed by the IO. In my view, since CBI has not relied upon the hard discs of any such laptop/computer etc. nor those hard discs have been cited in the relied upon articles by CBI, so at this stage there is no question of supplying the same to accused no.2/applicant.
39. The last application moved by accused no. 2 is dated Page No. 17 of 19 07.05.2012. The request for hard discs of laptop, desktop and type writer has been reiterated in para no. 3 which has been already dealt with. In the same para, the accused no. 2/applicant has prayed for phone records and telephonic records of calls of two mobile phones of Deputy SP Ram Singh. As stated earlier, these are not relied upon documents; hence, the same cannot be supplied to accused at this stage.
40. In para no. 4, it has been submitted that in the CD supplied to accused voice specimens from S-1 to S-8 could not be accessed. In the CD available in the court, the said voice specimens can be accessed. The accused no. 2/applicant has been supplied fresh copies of those voice samples to his satisfaction.
41. In para no. 5 (a), the accused no.2 has prayed for supply of documents regarding verification of complaint, correspondence between the Special Unit of CBI and ACU-I and copy of the complaint. In para (b), the applicant has prayed for supply of panchnama details of case property (mobile phones) imported by accused no.4 & 5 and seizure memo etc. These documents are not relied upon documents. Hence, the same cannot be supplied to accused at this stage. As far as the question who had instructed to lodge the FIR, the copy of FIR is with the accused, which is self explanatory.
42. In para no. 6 of the application, accused no. 2/applicant has prayed for site map of the alleged recoveries. As per CBI, no site map was prepared; hence there is no question of supplying the same to accused.
43. In the prayer clause 8(b) of the application, there is a request for Page No. 18 of 19 supply of important notes of paragraphs information on the basis of which later on IO recorded statements of witnesses. No such notes have been relied upon, hence the same cannot be ordered to be supplied to the accused persons.
44. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration (Supra) relied upon by accused no.2 has been over-ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Sidhartha Vashist vs. State (Supra). I have also gone through the other judgments relied upon by accused which reiterate the general principles and law regarding trials. The said judgments are of no help to accused no.2 in support of his prayers made for supply of documents under Section 207 CrPC. The ratios of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra), Sidhartha Vashist vs. State (Supra) and of our own Hon 'b le High Court in the matter of Ashok Chawla Vs. Ram Chander Garvan (Supra) are applicable to applications under Section 207 CrPC.
45. Accused no. 3 Hemant Gandhi has moved two applications. In the first application dated 19.04.2012 in para no. 1 he has prayed for whole of the tape recorded conversations recorded by CBI. This aspect has been dealt with in detail in the preceding paragraphs and the conclusion is that the said whole of the tape recorded conversations cannot be ordered to be supplied to the accused persons.
46. In para no. 2 of the application, accused no.3/applicant has requested for supply of copy of sanction for prosecution of accused no. 1 Page No. 19 of 19 which stands supplied to him. In para no. 3 of this application, accused has prayed for copies of all the documents placed before the sanctioning authority in respect of sanction granted against accused no.1. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Prakash Singh Badal (supra), at this stage sanction order in respect of accused no. 1 is on record and the entire file cannot be summoned. His other request for supply hard copies of documents stands complied with.
47. Accused no. 3 moved another application dated 04.05.2012 in which in para no. 13 he prays for phone locations of all the officers involved in his arrest and conducting raid at his residence along with tower location co- ordinates. The CBI has not relied upon any such call details along with tower identification, so no copy in this regard can be supplied to accused no.3. In the prayer clause, he has prayed for details of his mobile location along with tower location of the mobile phones of the witnesses, which can also not be supplied as the same is not relied upon document by the CBI.
48. All the applications moved by accused no. 1, 2 and 3 U/s 207 CrPC are hereby disposed off.
Announced in the open court on 17th day of May, 2012.
(TALWANT SINGH) Special Judge CBI-01, ND Page No. 20 of 19