Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The petitioner also objected to the recall of witnesses after the closure of prosecution evidence and after final arguments had commenced, stating that it was highly prejudicial to his right to a fair trial as it placed him at a severe disadvantage.

11. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court allowed the prosecution‟s application vide the impugned order dated 27 th January, 2023, holding that the screenshot was already a part of the record, though incomplete, and its completion did not amount to fresh evidence. The learned Court below further stated that the error in filing an incomplete document was inadvertent. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court permitted the recall of witnesses with the reasoning that their testimonies needed to be examined in light of the additional document and allowing their re-examination would ensure that the Court concerned had access to a complete factual record.

38. In light of the above contentions, the issues that arise for adjudication by this Court are whether the introduction of the complete screenshot of the OHDTM menu constitutes fresh evidence requiring compliance with Section 173(8) CrPC, or whether it is a mere rectification of an incomplete document? The next question that arises is whether the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce additional documentary evidence after the conclusion of final arguments, thereby amounting to violation of the petitioner‟s right to fair trial?

***

13. Vide instant application, the permission has been sought for placing on record the photocopy of the screen shots (certified by the bank) in respect of alleged 8 transactions bearing transaction ID no.001720018, 001574609, 001176711, 001523106, 001607400, 001716231, 001578946 and 001642429 taken from the OHDTM Menu of the FINACLE System. As per CBI, the screen shots of aforementioned 8 transactions earlier placed on record with the chargesheet, which are now part of exhibit Ex. PW17/A- 1 (colly), are incomplete documents as the same do not reflect the transaction number appearing on the corresponding bank vouchers allegedly forged by the accused. It is submitted by Ld. PP that the transaction number is usually mentioned on the top right corner of the window of OHDTM Menu whereas, the screen shots which are already placed on record were taken by scrolling down the window of OHDTM Menu for showing only the bottom side bearing the details of the bank officer who made the entires in respect of said transactions while the topmost portion reflecting the transaction number of the entry remained cut out. Therefore, the screen shots available on judicial record are not complete as they do not depict the transaction number on the top right corner of OHDTM Menu corresponding with the transaction number mentioned on the alleged forged vouchers. For said reason, during their cross-examination PW-10, PW- 17, PW-20 and PW-23 were not able to relate the forged vouchers with the alleged transactions in the OHDTM Menu and in the light of said circumstances of the case, the complete screen shots of OHDTM Menu reflecting the transaction number of the relevant entry, are necessary to be placed on record and the related witnesses are also required to be recalled for their re-examination in the light of said complete screen shots."

20. The contention of the defence counsel that the provisions of Cr.P.C do not provide for filing of the additional documents after commencement of trial is not convincing for the reason that the documents sought to be placed on record are not any new documents but are complete copies of incomplete screenshots which are already on record. Even otherwise, the rules of procedure are designed as means of fair and just trial because the real purpose of criminal trial is to unravel the truth and ascertainment of real facts. In my considered view, Section 311 Cr.P.C which is analogous to Section 540 of old Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to allow not only the additional evidence at any stage of trial but to also allow any additional document in evidence at any stage of proceedings provided the same is considered essential for just decision of case and does to lead to any prejudice to the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled "Chandu Veeraiah And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, (DOD 16 November, 1959) AIR 1960 AP 329, 1960 Cri LJ 791. Though the Prosecution has committed mistake by filing incomplete documents on record and by not taking steps to rectify the defect at the appropriate stage but, Section 311 CrPC gives wide powers to court to act as the exigency of the case would require provided no prejudice is caused to the accused.