In a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging orders allowing prosecution to file further documents, the Patna High Court declined to pass orders on assumption or suspicion. It dismissed the petition, leaving objections open for the trial stage.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10985 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Dr. Harihar Prasad Son Of Late Lohar Sahu, Resident Of VillageChandwey, Post Office- Pithoria, District- Ranchi(Jharkhand). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the C.B.I. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Md. Hussamuddin Azad and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kr. Sinha, S.C., C.B.I. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 01-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish one set of court fee, as the petitioner has challenged two orders dated 14.1.2011 and 11.2.2011 and has only furnished one set of court fee.
3. Primarily, the objection that has been raised by the petitioner is that in Annexure-2 at page 47 in the list of documents at item No. 20 it has been mentioned that the C.B.I. has liberty to file other documents relevant to this case.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the law laid down by this Court in view of section 207 Cr.P.C., the prosecution cannot file any document after framing of the charge as the idea behind is, that the accused persons should not be asked
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10985 of 2011 (5) dt.01-08-2012
2 / 4
to face the document without prior notice but suddenly, at an unprepared state would cause prejudice to accused at the trial if prosecution would be allowed to file documents. This is based on the principle is that no person can be punished without giving proper opportunity to defend himself.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the documents which have been mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 19 has been supplied to the petitioner, has been recorded in the order sheet of the Court but the petitioner apprehends that in future the C.B.I. may file other documents after framing of the charge which is not permissible in law and would cause prejudice.
6. In support of his contention, he has relied on judgment reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R. 360 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar) and also another unreported judgment passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1809/2010 (Harihar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar).
7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as per these judgments, the prosecution cannot be allowed to file documents without proper service to the defence, that too before framing of the charge and after framing of the charge, the prosecution cannot be allowed to file any documents. In view of statement made in item No.-20, he has reason to believe that the prosecution may file the document even during the trial.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10985 of 2011 (5) dt.01-08-2012
3 / 4
8. The counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that the prosecution has right to file the document till the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and section 207 Cr.P.C. is only meant that whatever the documents are relied by the C.B.I. will have to supply to the accused persons before exhibiting those documents. This is the only idea of the section 207 Cr.P.C.
9. The counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the aforesaid judgment cited by the petitioner does not preclude the persecution from filing document after the framing of the charge rather it only envisage that before getting the document exhibited the documents have to be supplied to the accused persons. He further submits that the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner does not preclude the C.B.I./Prosecution to file document after framing of the charge.
10. The argument of the counsel for the C.B.I. is refuted by the counsel for the petitioner.
11. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to pass any order on assumption and presumption or suspicion of the petitioner when no cause of action has arisen, if any such document is filed by the C.B.I., the petitioner will have a liberty to raise the objection with regard to acceptability of those documents. The court will pass the order in accordance with law
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10985 of 2011 (5) dt.01-08-2012
4 / 4
and would also consider the judgment which has been cited by the
petitioner.
12. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 207 Cr.P.C. prohibits the prosecution from filing documents after framing of charge without prior notice to the defence.
Whether an apprehension that documents may be filed during trial justifies dismissing a challenge to an order allowing further filings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of BiharReferred¶6
2011 (2) P.L.J.R. 360
Harihar Prasad Vs. State of BiharReferred¶6
Cr. Misc. No. 1809/2010
Dr. Harihar Prasad
The Union of India through the C.B.I.
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
