Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1136 (MP)

Brijlal Chhiroliya v. State of M. P.

2014-09-10

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER : Shri J. L. Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Dubey, standing counsel for the respondent/EOW. Heard on the question of admission. This revision under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code is preferred on behalf of the applicant/ accused being aggrieved by the part of the order dated 7-5-2012 passed by the Special Judge constituted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( in short the Act) Raisen in Spl. Case No. 4/10 whereby the application of the applicant filed under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code for appropriate direction to the prosecution/ respondent to provide him the copies of some documents mentioned in such application has been dismissed. 2. Applicant's counsel after taking us through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record along with the copy of the impugned application and the order argued that as per provision of section 207 or 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused like the applicant is entitled to get the copies of the entire papers filed along with the charge-sheet by the prosecution along with the police report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and when the entire copies of such documents were not supplied to him then the impugned application was filed on his behalf and unless the copies of the documents/ papers stated in the application, which are part of the charge-sheet, is supplied to him, he is not in a position to defend the case properly and, in such premises, it could not be said that the prosecution has complied with the provision of section 207 read with section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In continuation he said that to supply the copies of some of the documents, on various occasions, the standing counsel of the respondent had taken adjournment and when the same were not supplied then the impugned application was filed on behalf of the applicant. In continuation he said that to supply the copies of some of the documents, on various occasions, the standing counsel of the respondent had taken adjournment and when the same were not supplied then the impugned application was filed on behalf of the applicant. In such premises, he said that when the prosecution himself had taken the time to supply the copies of the documents and subsequently on non complying the same if the application was filed then the trial Court ought to have allow the same with appropriate direction to the respondent but the same has been dismissed under wrong premises and prayed to give appropriate direction to the respondent to supply the copies of such documents by allowing his application and setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court till the extent of dismissing the aforesaid application of the applicant. 3. On the other hand, learned standing counsel of the respondent said that except copies of those documents which are voluminous, the copies of other documents filed along with police report/charge-sheet under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been supplied to the applicant after taking his acknowledgment receipt and such receipt was also placed before the trial Court. In continuation, by referring the second proviso of section 207 and the first proviso of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such counsel said that if the document is voluminous then it is not possible for the prosecution to supply the copies of the same to the accused like the applicant and, in such premises, the presiding officer of the concerning Court has an authority to give permission to the applicant to inspect such documents from the record to defend the matter. In continuation, he said that in view of such provision, the copies relating to the banking and the other record which are voluminous, could not be made available to the applicant by the respondent/EOW. In such premises he said that the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order with the observation that except the copies of the voluminous documents, the copies of other documents have already been supplied to the applicant after taking his acknowledgment and if the applicant wants then he may inspect the voluminous documents which are part of the record of the trial Court. He further said that the order passed by the trial Court is in consonance with the provision of section 207 read with 208 and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, do not require any interference at this stage because the same is neither perverse nor against the propriety of the law and prayed for dismissal of this revision at the initial stage. 4. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the revision memo as well as papers placed on the record along with the impugned application and the order so also the aforesaid referred provision of sections 207 read with 208 and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code along with the proviso of the earlier two sections. On such perusal, we have found that the applicant had made the prayer to supply the copies of those documents which are voluminous and relating to some banking and other official record and, in such premises, supplying the copies of such documents is not possible by the respondent/ prosecution agency while as per aforesaid acknowledgment receipt of the applicant it appears that he has received the copies of all other documents filed with the charge-sheet. So, in such premises, we have not found any fault in the impugned order of the trial Court directing the applicant to inspect the voluminous documents in the Court without supplying him the copies of the same by the respondent. In such premises, the impugned order being passed by the trial Court in its vested discretionary jurisdiction, is neither perverse nor against the propriety of the law. Thus, the same does not require any interference at this stage. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.