The Supreme Court has clarified that if the prosecution forgets to submit certain documents along with the chargesheet, it can later present those documents—even after the chargesheet is filed—if no prejudice is caused to the accused.
The case was heard by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih. The prosecution wanted to introduce Compact Discs (CDs) as additional evidence, which were mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet but were not submitted to the magistrate initially. The CDs were brought up during the trial, and the magistrate allowed their production. This decision was later upheld by the High Court, prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court.
Read also: Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response on Suggestions to Reform Sex Education and Real-Time
The appellant argued that as per Section 173(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), all relevant documents should be submitted with the chargesheet at the same time. The CDs were available during the initial investigation, so they couldn’t be submitted later under the pretext of "further investigation" under Section 173(8) CrPC.
The prosecution, on the other hand, said the CDs were mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet but were left out by mistake. They argued that since there was no harm to the accused's rights, and the defense had the chance to challenge the CDs’ authenticity, the omission was minor and could be corrected. They cited the judgment from Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 82, which allows additional documents to be produced after the chargesheet is filed if the omission was genuine and caused no prejudice.
Read also: Supreme Court: Referring to Trial Court as "Lower Court" is Against the Constitution
The Court quoted R.S. Pai:
"If there is an omission on the part of the prosecution in forwarding the relied upon documents to the learned Magistrate, even after the chargesheet is submitted, the prosecution can be permitted to produce the additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation."
Rejecting the appellant’s argument, the Supreme Court said that the CDs mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet were not considered new evidence. Hence, Section 173(8) CrPC did not apply. The CDs had been seized and referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for forensic examination, along with voice samples of the accused. After the CFSL report was received, the supplementary chargesheet was filed to include the report, but the CDs themselves were mistakenly left out. Therefore, the CDs could be produced later without any legal issues.
The Court highlighted:
"In the facts of the case, the CDs were seized and referred for forensic analysis to the CFSL along with voice samples of the accused. The CDs were referred to in the supplementary chargesheet. After the CFSL report was received, the supplementary chargesheet was filed for placing on record the said report. Therefore, when the CDs were sought to be produced, in a sense, they were not new articles; the CDs were very much referred to in the supplementary chargesheet filed on 13th October 2013. There was only an omission on the part of the respondent-CBI to produce the CDs. Therefore, applying the law laid down in the case of R.S.Pai, the impugned judgments of the Special Court and the High Court cannot be faulted with."
Case Title: Sameer Sandhir versus Central Bureau of Investigation
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur Chawla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pujari, Adv. Mr. Aamir Khan, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal,Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani,Adv. Mr. Aakansha Kaul, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Khanna,Adv. Mr. S.K.Gupta,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma,Adv. Mr. Kartik Sabharwal,Adv. Mr. Pranjal Tripathi,Adv.
