The Delhi High Court upheld a Trial Court’s decision permitting the prosecution to introduce a complete version of an already filed document, clarifying that such rectification does not amount to “fresh evidence” requiring compliance with Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Chandra Dhari Singh emphasized that procedural fairness and the pursuit of truth must guide judicial decisions, even at advanced trial stages.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sonu, a former Bank of Baroda employee, faced charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 201 for allegedly falsifying cash deposit slips and replacing valid currency with demonetized notes during the 2016 demonetization period. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) accused him of manipulating transaction records in the bank’s Finacle System.
After the prosecution closed its evidence and final arguments concluded, the CBI sought permission to submit a complete screenshot from the Finacle System’s OHDTM menu. This document, initially filed incompletely, included a transaction number linking Sonu to the alleged fraud. The CBI also requested the recall of four witnesses to re-examine them based on the complete evidence.
Sonu opposed the application, arguing:
- The screenshot constituted fresh evidence requiring further investigation under S.173(8) CrPC.
- Allowing witness recall after final arguments violated his right to a fair trial, creating procedural prejudice.
The Trial Court, however, permitted the CBI’s request, stating the screenshot was a correction of an oversight, not new evidence. Aggrieved, Sonu approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Fresh Evidence vs. Rectification
The Court distinguished between “fresh evidence” and “rectification”:
- Fresh Evidence: New material altering the prosecution’s case or introducing new allegations.
- Rectification: Correcting inadvertent omissions in existing evidence.
Justice Singh noted:
“The document in question was already part of the record in an incomplete form. Its completion does not introduce new allegations but ensures clarity for a just decision.”
The Court highlighted that S.173(8) CrPC applies only when new evidence emerges from further investigation, necessitating a supplementary chargesheet. Here, no further investigation occurred—the CBI merely rectified an oversight.
The petitioner argued that recalling witnesses after final arguments unfairly disadvantaged him. The High Court disagreed, stressing:
“Procedural safeguards, including cross-examination of recalled witnesses, negate claims of prejudice. The accused’s tactical disadvantage from corrected evidence does not equate to a fair trial violation.”
The Bench referenced Supreme Court precedents, including Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, which underscore courts’ duty to ensure complete evidence for truthful adjudication. Justice Singh remarked:
“A trial must not falter on technicalities. Denying the prosecution’s correction would risk an incomplete verdict, defeating justice.”
With these observations, the Court upheld the Trial Court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Case title: Sonu vs. CBI (CRL.M.C. 1309/2023 & CRL.M.A. 5010/2023)
