When A Document Is Already Part Of The Record But Incomplete, Submitting Its Complete Version Does Not Constitute Fresh Evidence Requiring Compliance U/s. 173(8) CrPC: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Petition seeking to set aside the Trial Court’s Order which allowed the Prosecution to introduce additional evidence at a later stage in trial.
The Delhi High Court held that when a document is already part of the record but incomplete, submitting its complete version does not constitute fresh evidence requiring compliance with Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
The Court dismissed a Petition filed by an Accused seeking to set aside an Order by the Special Court (PC Act) which allowed the Prosecution to introduce additional evidence at a late stage in an alleged bank fraud case. The Bench upheld the Trial Court’s decision, emphasising that the submission of a complete screenshot from the Finacle System was a procedural lapse rather than fresh evidence.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held, “In light of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that the submission of the complete screenshot of the OHDTM menu from the Finacle system (used for processing and recording cash deposit transactions including details such as transaction amounts, timestamps and associated voucher numbers) does not tantamount to introduction of fresh evidence requiring compliance with Section 173(8) of the CrPC, instead, the same is merely a rectification of an inadvertent omission.”
Advocate Hitender Kapur represented the Petitioner, while SPP Rajesh Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Deputy General Manager of the Bank of Baroda had filed a complaint alleging financial irregularities at one of the branches during the demonetization period. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged the Accused, a Single Window Operator (SWO) at the bank under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 201 of the IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
The Prosecution had completed its evidence, and the Trial had reached the stage of final arguments when the CBI sought to introduce a complete screenshot from the OHDTM menu of the Finacle System, which was allegedly omitted earlier. The prosecution argued that the additional details were crucial to linking the accused to the alleged forged transactions. The trial court allowed the submission of the document and permitted the recall of four witnesses for re-examination.
It was argued that Section 311 of the CrPC does not permit the introduction of fresh documentary evidence and that the Prosecution failed to follow the procedure under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court had to determine whether the introduction of the complete screenshot of the OHDTM menu constituted fresh evidence requiring compliance with Section 173(8) CrPC.
Section 173(8) of the CrPC requires a supplementary chargesheet and “permissible rectification” of an evidentiary oversight, and the same does not attract the procedural safeguards of further investigation.
Therefore, this Court had to determine whether the additional details, within the complete screenshot of the OHDTM menu from the Finacle System, substantively impact the prosecution’s case or the accused’s defence, thereby, requiring compliance with Section 173(8) of the CrPC or whether its introduction falls within the permissible domain of clarification of evidence already on record.
“The distinction between fresh evidence and rectification is wellrecognized in legal principles governing criminal trials. Fresh evidence, generally, refers to new material that was not a part of the original investigation and alters the nature of the prosecution‟s case by introducing new facts or allegations against the accused. Such evidence typically emerges from further investigation, requiring compliance with Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as it is an addition to the originally completed investigation,” the Court explained.
“Rectification, on the other hand, involves the correction of an omission, mistake or incomplete filing of evidence that was already collected during the investigation. A rectification does not introduce new elements into the case but merely ensures that the existing evidence is presented in its complete and accurate form,” the Bench clarified.
The Court stated that it was duty bound to assess whether the accused/petitioner has suffered any disadvantage in terms of his defence or if the opposition to the introduction of the complete document is merely technical.
“Applying this distinction, this Court finds that the introduction of the complete screenshot does not constitute fresh evidence. The document in question was already a part of record in an incomplete form, and its completion does not introduce any new allegation, new findings, or alter the prosecution‟s case in any material manner,” it held.
Consequently, the Court held, “This Court also finds that the decision of the learned Trial Court to allow the prosecution to introduce the complete screenshot was legally justified, procedurally sound, and necessary for ensuring that the best possible evidence comes before the Court for proper adjudication of the Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sonu v. Central Bureau Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:971)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Hitender Kapur and Yatin
Respondent: SPP Rajesh Kumar; Advocates Mishika Pandita and Mohd Changez Ali Khan
