Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shailendra Bhandari vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 13 September, 2022
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2885/2022 Shailendra Bhandari S/o Late Shri Narpat Chand Bhandari, Aged About 64 Years, R/o House No. 395A, 2 nd C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation through Special PP
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Kumar Prajapat with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Puri For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit, Special Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 13/09/2022
1. Instant petition lays challenge to the Court's decision/refusal to provide certified copies of the Digital Video Cassette Recorder (DVR-1) and medical examination reports to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts, relevant for the present purpose, are that the petitioner is facing trial under the provisions of Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the course of trial, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for summoning the DVR and medical examination reports, which was rejected. Whereafter, the petitioner moved this Court by way of filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code, which petition came to be allowed by a (Downloaded on 14/09/2022 at 11:57:26 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2885/2022] coordinate Bench of this Court by Order dated 12.11.2021, with the following directions :-
"The Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed of with a direction that the two articles/ documents i.e. copies of medical examination report of Shailendra Bhandrai conducted under CBI custody on 01.04.2015, 03.04.20125, 05.04.2015, 07.04,.2015 & 09.04.2015 & copy of Digital Video Cassette Recorder recovered seized by CBI from the shop of Anant Ram Katta Jewelers after trap proceedings and marked 'DVR-I be summoned before the trial court."
3. In furtherance of the direction aforesaid, the CBI produced all the documents including DVR-1 and copies of medical examination reports. The petitioner moved an application dated 30.11.2021 and requested the trial court to provide copies of the DVR-1 and medical examination reports dated 01.04.2015, 03.04.2015, 05.04.2015, 07.04.2015 & 09.04.2015.
4. By Order dated 15.03.2022, the trial court refused to provide copies of required documents inter alia observing that the Court can refuse to give copy of such documents, photocopy whereof is not feasible or possible. While dismissing petitioner's application, the trial court, however, permitted the petitioner's counsel to inspect the documents.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application dated 25.04.2022 requiring certified copies of DVR-1 and photocopies of the medical examination reports, which has been turned down by the trial court vide its Order dated 25.04.2022 inter alia observing (Downloaded on 14/09/2022 at 11:57:26 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2885/2022] that copies cannot be given in light of the Order dated 22.04.2022 (sic 15.03.2022).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that above referred documents are necessary for petitioner's defence and the trial court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's request for providing certified copies vide Orders dated 15.03.2022 and 25.04.2022, on unsustainable grounds.
7. It was argued that copy of DVR-1 can be provided on CD or Pen Drive and so is the position of medical examination reports.
8. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the CBI, on the other hand, submitted that the trial court has committed no error in law in refusing the petitioner's request for providing the copies. He argued that DVR-1 is the recording in digital form and certified copy thereof cannot be granted by the court. It was also argued that the petitioner is filing one application after another just with a view to get the proceedings prolonged.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. It is to be noted that the documents (DVR-1 & medical examination reports) have been ordered to be summoned and placed on record, by this Court vide its order dated 12.11.2021.
11. In the opinion of this Court, once above referred DVR-1 and medical examination reports have been brought on record, the trial court was required to provide their copies to the petitioner, who is facing trial. All the accused persons including the petitioner, are entitled to get copies to put forth their defence. The trial court has, therefore, clearly erred in turning down (Downloaded on 14/09/2022 at 11:57:26 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2885/2022] petitioner's request for providing copies of DVR-1 and medical examination reports.
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned orders dated 15.03.2022 and 25.04.2022 are set aside.
13. The trial court is directed to provide certified copies of the documents (medical examination reports) to the petitioner wherever possible. In case, there is any x-ray report, photocopy whereof is not possible, the trial court may refuse it.
14. In relation to DVR-1, the trial court shall provide copy of the DVR-1 to the petitioner on Pen Driver/CD, cost whereof shall be borne by the petitioner.
15. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
16. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 181-Inder/-
(Downloaded on 14/09/2022 at 11:57:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)