Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cd transcript in Sanjeev Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 September, 2012Matching Fragments
4. Finding no alternative, then, the petitioners moved another application for supplying the complete transcript conversation of the CD. The trial Judge again directed the prosecution to supply to the accused a complete transcript conversation of CD handed over by the Investigating Officer, vide detailed order dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure P7).
5. Subsequently, position remained the same, which necessitated the petitioners-accused to move another application (Annexure P15) for direction to CBI to remove/rectify the discrepancies/omissions in the CD. The CBI filed the reply (Annexure P16) to the application.
9. As is evident from the record, that the prosecution has relied upon the indicated transcript version of CD, but its copy was not supplied to the accused, despite repeated directions. Ultimately, in the wake of the application, the trial Judge directed the prosecution to supply to all the accused the complete transcript version of the CD in question, by virtue of order (Annexure P7), which, in substance, is as under (paras 14 &
15):-
"14. It is very interesting to note that along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the prosecution has attached the list of the articles relied upon by the prosecution, which are to be produced during the course of trial and in that list, the CD in dispute i.e. the CD handed over by the complainant is mentioned at Sr.No.6. This CD is also (the) relied upon document of the prosecution. There is no mention in the list of documents or in the list of the articles that which portion of the CD is (the) relied upon portion and which portion is not relevant for this case. No note has been appended with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as required under Section 173 (6) Cr.P.C. that any part of the CD is not relevant to the subject matter of these proceedings. Once, the entire CD is the relied upon article by the prosecution, I found substance in the contentions of the learned defence counsel that the CD cannot be cut into pieces/portions and the complete CD is one article, which is relied upon by the prosecution, no exception under Section 173 (6) Cr.PC has been claimed by the prosecution to withheld any portion of the said CD from the accused on any ground so, the prosecution is required to supply the complete transcript of the CD to all the accused.
"From the perusal of the record in the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that through order dated 24.01.2011, the prosecution was directed to supply to all the accused complete transcription of the CD handed over by complainant Arvind Kumar Pandey to the Investigating Officer. Through order dated 16.08.2011, Investigating Officer was directed to provide complete transcription. After hearing the CD, through order dated 01.12.2011, Investigating Officer was directed to prepare complete transcription of conversation/voices, time and place etc. In pursuance to above orders, the investigating officer has submitted complete transcription. The accused have further pointed out certain omissions and prayed for rectification. The Investigating Officer has shown his inability to do the same. In spite of specific directions, the Investigating Officer is not willing to remove the omissions despite being pointed out by the accused. So, accused will be at liberty to submit their part of the transcript, as they already have copy of complete conversation. It is well settled principle of law that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. The rules of procedure cannot be used to subvert the ends of justice. IN view of the above material facts and well settled principle of law, application dated 06.04.2012 for rectification of omissions in transcript is dismissed."
17. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petitions are partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P17) is hereby set aside. The prosecution is directed to supply the complete transcript version of the indicated CD to the accused in pursuance of the initial order (Annexure P7) of the Special Judge.
18. Needless to mention that if the prosecution fails to supply the complete transcript version contained in the CD, then, the Special Judge would naturally rely upon that portion of the transcription of the CD, the copy of which was actually supplied to the accused and not otherwise.