ORDER By the Court.— Before proceeding in the matter, the order passed on 6.10.2012 needs to be recorded herein below : "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners are being prosecuted in RC N. 48-A of 1996. When the police papers along with the documents were submitted to the Court, an application was filed on behalf of the accused persons to direct the CBI to furnish all those documents so that they may file petition for discharge. On filing such petition, objection was taken by the CBI that the documents are quite voluminous which run into 56000 pages and hence, it would not be possible for the CBI to furnish those documents to the accused persons. On taking such objection, an order was passed on 27.2.2004 whereby prosecution was directed to furnish copies of every document which the CBI would be intending to adduce evidence to those accused persons which is related to them. However, in the same order, it was also recorded that the matter be posted on the next date for inspection of the documents. Since all the documents were not ordered to be furnished the accused person filed Cr. M.P. No. 324 of 2004, the application was dismissed after holding that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Thereupon, the trial proceeded with. When the trial proceeded with, another application was filed for directing the CBI to furnish the documents, upon which it will be placing reliance. On filing such application, the CBI made statement before the Court that the prosecution is very much aware of the order regarding furnishing of the documents to the accused persons which is related to them before adducing the same. However, when the documents were not furnished, another application was filed by the accused persons. Rejoinder to that application was filed by the CBI wherein in paragraphs 2 and 3 following statements were made : "In reply to this paragraph, it is submitted that part IOs have been recommended for issuance of summons. It is because they will be proving their investigations only. The witnesses who have been examined by them will be proving the documents and circumstances leading to the facts. At present, there is no requirement of supply of contingent bills enclosing suppliers' bills to them. It is because they will be proving their investigations only. The witnesses who have been examined by them will be proving the documents and circumstances leading to the facts. At present, there is no requirement of supply of contingent bills enclosing suppliers' bills to them. The Xerox copies of the contingent bills will be supplied to the concerned accused persons at an appropriate time. So, they need not to worry. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the examination of part loss may not be adjourned." 2. In stead of furnishing documents as committed by the CBI, an application was filed by the CBI on 1.9.2012 wherein prayer was made to allow them to furnish DVD so that accused persons by watching DVD may inspect the documents, upon which CBI would be placing reliance. That prayer was allowed. 3. Being aggrieved with that, this application has been filed. 4. Mr. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in spite of repeated statement being made on behalf of the CBI that at the relevant point of time, documents would be furnished, the documents were never furnished. In stead of furnishing documents the CBI has now come forward with a plea that DVD would be supplied which is foreign to the relevant provision of the Code of therefore, the order is quite illegal. 5. In this regard, it was further submitted that the petitioners would be asking only CNC bills to be furnished and not any other documents. If occasion would arise, the petitioners would make inspection of other documents and in such situation, if CBI takes any plea that the documents are voluminous it would be• without substance and therefore, keeping in view the earlier commitment made by the CBI before the Court below, the CBI be directed to furnish at least copy of the CNC bills to each of the petitioners. 6. Upon which, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submitted that chapter of furnishing documents which is undoubtedly voluminous is closed when the Cr. M.P. No. 324 of 2004 got dismissed and therefore, the plea cannot be agitated by the petitioners. 7. 6. Upon which, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submitted that chapter of furnishing documents which is undoubtedly voluminous is closed when the Cr. M.P. No. 324 of 2004 got dismissed and therefore, the plea cannot be agitated by the petitioners. 7. Upon it, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the prayer for directing the CBI to furnish relevant documents which would be adduced in evidence against the petitioner has never been denied rather the prayer for furnishing documents other than the relevant documents has been dined. That apart, it is the CBI, who had made statement repeatedly that they would be furnishing the copies of contingent bills and therefore., CBI cannot back out from the promise made to the Court; particularly when the order of the Court is there for furnishing relevant documents to each to the accused person. 8. Upon it, Mr. Khan submitted that he needs to take instruction as to whether number of contingent bills which the accused persons are asking for would be limited in number or it would be huge in number. 9. As prayed for, let this matter be listed on 9.10.2012 under the same heading. 10. Further, on 23.11.2012, following order was recorded :- "Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that during investigation, 31,248 sheet of contingent bills have been seized, which would be put in evidence for proving charge against all the accused persons and if those contingent bills are asked to be supplied to each of the appellants, number of total sheets (31248 x 157) would come out as 49.5.936, which will cost huge amount. Upon it, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instructions, which have been made available by the CBI to his counsel do not seem to be correct, as he is quite sure that all the 31,148 sheets may, not be the invoices, rather it may include other documents than the invoices and further 31,248 sheets, even if they are invoices, are never, required to be multiplied by 157, as all the accused would never be concerning with all those 31,248 sheets of the invoices, rather experience is that one may concerned with 10 invoices, other may concerned with 20 invoices or even 40 invoices, but in any case, one accused is never required to be supplied with 31,248 sheets. Since written instruction has still not been put on the record, let that instruction be put on the record by way of supplementary counter affidavit. Meanwhile, counsel appearing for the appellant would watch DVD to verify as to whether total number of sheets of 31,248 concerns invoices only, or it include other documents. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that DVD has never been supplied to him and, therefore, he is unable to verify the said fact. In such circumstances, the matters be posted for next Friday i.e. on 30.11.2012 so that affidavit be filed on behalf of the CBI. In the meantime, it be verified as to whether DVD has been supplied to each of the accused or not. At this point of time, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that scan copies of those 31,248 sheets have been prepared and has been made available to the Court, which, under the order of the trial Court, would be received and would be produced before this Court to show that all those documents concerns only the invoices and not any other documents. Till then, order passed on 9.10.2012 shall abide by the parties. Let a copy this order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the parties for needful." 11. Today, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for CBI submits that DVD has been prepared so 'that it be supplied to each of the accused as the stand, which is being taken by the accused persons before the Court below, is that they need each and every documents on which the CBI would be placing its reliance, but the same is being not accepted by the petitioners, though some of the accused persons have accepted the DVD. 12. Upon it, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that right from the beginning when these applications were filed before this Court, stand, which is being taken by the petitioners, is that they need only the invoices concerning them and not any other documents and this assertion has also been made on 6.10.2012 and that they are' not deviating from the stand taken earlier. 13. In that event, let those invoices related to petitioners be supplied to them within four weeks. 14. Until the invoices are supplied to the petitioners, order as passed on 9.10.2012 shall remain in force. 15. 13. In that event, let those invoices related to petitioners be supplied to them within four weeks. 14. Until the invoices are supplied to the petitioners, order as passed on 9.10.2012 shall remain in force. 15. With this observation, both the applications stand disposed. Applications disposed of.