Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. In an earlier decision in Magraj PtModia v. R.K. Birla , dealing with a document procured by illegal means, the Supreme Court has held that the fact that a document was procured by improper or even illegal means will not be a bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness proved.

16. Now, if the documents are already in the possession of the C.B.I, and if the manner in which the documents have been acquired is not relevant for the purpose of determining their probative value, in our view, any interference with the order of the learned Magistrate will become wholly academic. The documents will continue to be in possession of the investigating agency even if we were to interefere with the order dated April 24, 1978. This Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 will not be able to make an order preventing the C.B.I. from using the documents in their possession as evidence. That is why though the impugned order appears to us to be patently erroneous and in excess of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with that order. The powers under Article 227 are intended to be exercised in case of failure of justice. We do not know the contents of the documents received. Assuming that they are to be used as evidence against the petitioner, it cannot be said that that will result in injustice because the petitioner will have full opportunity to meet them in the course of the trial if he is prosecuted.

Sawant, J.

22. I intend to add a few lines to what has been said above. Accord-big to me, the petition is misconceived and without any substance. This is admittedly a stage where the prosecuting agency is still investigating the offence and collecting evidence against the accused. The petitioner, who is the accused, has therefore no locus standi at this stage to question the manner in which the evidence should be collected. The law of this country does not give any right to the accused to control, or interfere with, the collection of evidence. The only stage at which the accused can come in the picture vis-a-vis the evidence, is the stage when the evidence is sought to be tendered against him, and he can challenge it only on the ground that the evidence is inadmissible. That is why, according to me, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved at this stage, and hence he cannot claim any relief from this Court by filing a petition either under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 397 or 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been done in this case. For ought we know, the evidence that is collected by the prosecuting agency may not ultimately be tendered in Court. That is yet another reason that at this stage the accused cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Secondly even assuming that the evidence is being collected by the prosecuting agency in an illegal manner as stated above the evidence itself does not become illegal on that ground. Whether the evidence should be accepted by a Court of law or not, will depend upon whether it is relevant and admissible. That is why, even assuming that the provisions of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not open to be invoked for getting the Letter Rogatory issued, the petitioner-accused is not the person who can complain against such issuance. Hence, this petition was liable to be dismissed in limine on the short ground that the accused had no locus standi to file the same. It matters, therefore, very little whether the documents were received or were yet to be received in this country when the petition was filed. Even if the documents were yet to be received in this country, we would have still dismissed the petition on the aforesaid ground. There is, therefore, no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner that because an undertaking was given by the respondents not to use the documents pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition, it should be held that the prosecuting agency was not at all entitled to procure the documents from the United States and the procurement itself was illegal. It must be remembered in this connection that the provisions of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code are only enabling. It is only when the prosecuting agency is unable to procure documents except with the help of the Court, that the prosecution is compelled to approach the Court for issuance of the necessary process, for collecting the same. The prosecuting agency in the present case could have secured the said documents from the United States on its own without reference to a Court of law. There is nothing in law to bar the prosecuting agency from collecting evidence in that manner. Hence, it is erroneous to argue that merely because the documents in question have come in this country pursuant to the Letter Rogatory issued by the learned Magistrate, the use of the same should be prevented. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of any merit.