A two-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of affidavits by the accused to supply CFSL worksheets. Noting the documents were not in the charge sheet, the court held that under Cr.P.C. 207, such unknown documents were not mandatory to be produced.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
27-WP-456-16.odt
1 / 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.456 OF 2016
Mrs. Sumitra Subrato Banerji and another
.... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and another
... Respondents
Ms. Sonal Parab, advocate i/b. Rajeev Sawant & Associates for petitioners.
Mr.A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the State/respondent No.1. Ms. Rebecca Gonslavez, advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J. DATE : 21st NOVEMBER, 2016
P.C. :
Nesarikar
2 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
petitioners are challenging the order dated 22/01/2016 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI cases at Mumbai on application at Ex.117 by which similar prayer made by petitioners came to be rejected; though in the prayer clause of the petition, petitioners have not prayed specifically for quashing and setting aside this order dated 22/01/2016.
Nesarikar
3 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
alongwith documents, if any, as per letter dated 09/10/2015 issued by the Superintendent of Police, CBI-ACB. The learned counsel for petitioners took me through the order passed on third application at Ex.117 moved by petitioners for supply of documents listed at Sr.No.7(b) of the application for production of documents and contended that the prosecution is relying on worksheets prepared by the CFSL for auditory analysis by specimen voices and questioned voices, samples of evidence of Sumitra Banerji and Subrato Banerji. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, supply of these worksheets to petitioners/accused is essential for their proper defence as the same would be required to cross examine the expert of CFSL on Forensic Voice Examination Report. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused placed reliance on judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravinkumar Lalchand Shah, versus, The State of Gujarat and another, reported in 1981 G.L.H. 373 , by pointing out that the Gujarat High Court has held that enlarged photographs of handwriting are necessary in order to appreciate evidence of handwriting expert and such documents are required
Nesarikar
4 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
to be supplied to the accused. According to learned counsel for petitioners, in this warrant triable case, the compliance of section 207 of Cr.PC. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, as necessary in view of provisions of section 238 of Cr.PC. As, the prosecution is relying on Forensic Voice Examination Report, it is incumbent on the prosecution, to supply copies of worksheet, to petitioners/accused. Those are also necessary for cross examining expert witnesses.
Nesarikar
5 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
further argued that worksheets are not in possession of the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI ACB, Mumbai.
Nesarikar
6 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
Code of Criminal Procedure (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') it is mandatory for the Special Judge of the Special Court to ensure supply of relied documents to accused persons before framing of the charge. By relying on provisions of section 238 of the Cr.P.C., it was averred in the said application that in a warrant case instituted on police report, the Magistrate is required to satisfy himself about compliance of section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecuting agency replied the said application by contending that the prosecution is expected to supply copies of documents which are in its possession and not otherwise. The prosecuting agency further made it clear that various samples and recorded conversation was sent to the expert for opinion and the copy of the expert's opinion has already been furnished to accused persons. The CBI further contended in its reply that accused persons want copies of such documents, which are not in possession of the prosecuting agency and prayed for rejection of the application. On 12/10/2015, the Special Judge considered the rival submissions and observations in the order passed in the ordersheet that the CFSL, New Delhi is directed to send forthwith
Nesarikar
7 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
reply alongwith documents, if any, as per letter dated 09/10/2015 issued by Special Court, CBI, Mumbai, before the next date to the said Court.
Nesarikar
8 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
“Moreover, in our case at hand already in view of direction of this court the documents supplied by the CFSL are supplied to the accused. Only worksheets are now remaining, about which, there is no letter from CFSL that any worksheet as stated by applicants are prepared and not supplied. Moreover, at this stage, when the prosecution is not in possession of such documents such documents cannot directed to be supplied to the accused. The only contention for supply of above documents of Worksheet is that, it is necessary to be
Nesarikar
9 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
given to the expert to be appointed by the accused persons for taking independent opinion on the grounds that the questioned voices are mimicking voices. This contention may arise only at the time of trial. It cannot be considered at this stage. The copy of the questioned voice and sample voice are already supplied to the accused. The accused may very well send the questioned and sample voices to his expert if he so desires but for that purpose the worksheet of CFSL cannot be said to be necessary for the purposes of hearing on the point of charge unless they are shown to be in possession of CBI nor the copy of the same can be directed to be given to the accused. Therefore the application Exh.117 sans merit.”
Nesarikar
10 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
to the CFSL by the prosecuting agency. After due examination the CBI has sent its Forensic Voices Examination Report to the prosecuting agency and same is undisputedly filed by the prosecuting agency with the charge sheet and the copy thereof is already supplied to petitioner. Similarly, it is not disputed that all other documents sought by petitioner/accused are already supplied by the prosecuting agency to the petitioners/ accused persons. Parties are not in dispute that questioned voices and sample voices collected by the prosecuting agency are already supplied to petitioners/accused persons by the prosecuting agency. The Special Case bearing No.6/12 is a warrant triable case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. deals with trial of the warrant cases. Section 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “when in any warrant case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C.” Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. deals with supply of copy of police report and other documents to the accused. For
Nesarikar
11 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
our purpose, clause (V) of section 207 is relevant. It mandates that the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under Sub-Section (5) of section 173 of Cr.P.C. In other words, all documents or extracts of the documents, which are forwarded to the Magistrate alongwith charge-sheet are required to be supplied to the accused persons. In the case in hand, worksheets are not annexed to the charge-sheet or produced before the Special Court by the prosecuting agency. As such, it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of section 238 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecuting agency by not supplying worksheets to petitioners, which are not on the record of the Special Court.
Nesarikar
12 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
they want to seek opinion of the expert in respect of the questioned voices and the sample voices relied upon by the prosecution. It is not in dispute that the questioned voices and the sample voices are already supplied to petitioners by the prosecuting agency. In this view of the matter, when copies of worksheets are not annexed to the charge-sheet by the prosecuting agency, petitioners/accused can insist for supply of worksheets merely for the purpose of sending those worksheets to their private experts. The learned Special Court has rightly observed that petitioners herein may very well send samples of questioned voices and sample voices to their private expert for seeking opinion in the matter.
Nesarikar
13 / 13 27-WP-456-16.odt
instance in this Writ Petition. Therefore, ratio cited by the petitioners in the matter of Pravinkumar Lalchand Shah cited supra is of no assistance to the petitioners, as such ground was not raised before the learned Special Judge by petitioners.
6(A.M. BADAR , J. )
Nesarikar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecutorial agency is liable under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to supply CFSL worksheets that were not part of the charge-sheet.
Whether non-supply of worksheets causes prejudice to the accused in framing of charges before submission of defence.
Whether a High Court writ petition is maintainable for supply of documents in a criminal trial at the time of charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pravinkumar Lalchand Shah v. The State of GujaratDistinguished¶21
Pravinkumar Lalchand Shah, versus, The State of Gujarat and another, reported in 1981 G.L.H. 373
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sumitra Subrato Banerji
The State of Maharashtra
Superintendent of Police, CBI-ACB
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
