Supreme Court Upholds Order Allowing CBI To Place On Record CDs Not Produced Along With But Referred To In Supplementary Chargesheet
The appellant, who had approached the Supreme Court, is facing trial along with other accused persons in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Supreme Court has upheld the orders passed by the Delhi High Court & the Special Court whereby the CBI was allowed to place on record the compact discs (CDs) which were not produced along with the supplementary chargesheet. The Apex Court noted that there was only an omission on the part of the respondent-CBI to produce the CDs.
The appellant who had approached the Apex Court is facing trial along with other accused persons in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). An FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the PC Act. The dispute revolved around two Compact Discs.
The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “Therefore, when the CDs were sought to be produced, in a sense, they were not new articles; the CDs were very much referred to in the supplementary chargesheet filed on 13th October 2013. There was only an omission on the part of the respondent-CBI to produce the CDs. Therefore, applying the law laid down in the case of R.S.Pai, the impugned judgments of the Special Court and the High Court cannot be faulted with.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
In the year 2013, the Ministry of Home Affairs granted permission to intercept the telephone calls of accused 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. The Ministry of Home Affairs also granted permission during this period to intercept the telephone calls of one Manoj Garg. Two CDs, containing call records of 189 and 101 calls, respectively, were seized and sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for analysis. Sanction was granted under Section 19 of the PC Act. A charge sheet was filed by the respondent, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and cognisance was taken by the Special Court of the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the PC Act.
While recording the evidence of PW-3, the CDs which were not filed on record were sought to be played by the prosecution. An objection was raised from the accused’s side that the CDs were neither relied upon nor filed in the Court. An application was filed by the respondent CBI for production of the CDs by invoking Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Special Judge directed the playing of the two CDs in the Court and comparing the same with unsealed CDs which were in Malkhana of the respondent CBI. In 2015, the orders were set aside by the Delhi High Court with a direction to the Special Court to first decide whether the application of the respondent-CBI for the production of CDs could be allowed.
The Special Judge then allowed the application of the respondent-CBI to place the two CDs on record and dismissed the application made by the appellant for the return of the chargesheet. The order allowing the application made by the respondent-CBI was challenged before the Delhi High Court by the appellant by filing a quashing petition. By the impugned judgment, the petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to the judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R S Pai and Anr (2024) which was relied upon by the High Court, the Bench noted that it was observed therein that if there is an omission on the part of the prosecution in forwarding the relied upon documents to the Magistrate, even after the chargesheet is submitted, the prosecution can be permitted to produce the additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the CDs were seized and referred for forensic analysis to the CFSL along with voice samples of the accused. The CDs were referred to in the supplementary chargesheet. After the report of the CFSL was received, the supplementary chargesheet was filed for placing on record the said report.
The Bench was of the view that the High Court ought not to have gone into the issue of the authenticity of the CDs allowed to be produced. “Whether the CDs produced were the same which were seized on 4th May 2013 and 10th May 2013, is something which will have to be proved by the prosecution. The issue regarding the legality of the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act ought not to have been dealt with at this stage. Even if the production was allowed, the issue of the CDs' authenticity remains open”, it said.
Thus, finding no fault with the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Bench clarified, “However, the issue of whether the CDs produced were the same which were seized on 4th May 2013 and 10th May 2013 is left open. The issue regarding the validity of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is also left open. The issue of the authenticity of the CDs is kept open. The CDs were sought to be produced after the recording of evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses. It will also be open for the appellant to recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination on a limited aspect of the CD.”
Cause Title: Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 776)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Advocates Ankur Chawla, Aditya Pujari, Aamir Khan, AOR Jayant Mohan, Advocate Adya Shree Dutta
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Piyush Beriwal, Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Aakansha Kaul, Nidhi Khanna, S.K.Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Ishaan Sharma, Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi