1984 (6) TMI 257 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the accused to copies of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and documents sought to be used at trial.
2. Applicability of Section 173 of the CrPC in cases where the investigation does not culminate in a police report.
3. The principles of natural justice and their application to the right of disclosure in criminal proceedings.
4. The distinction between trials on police reports and trials on complaints.
5. The impact of the Maneka Gandhi case on the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution in criminal trials.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the accused to copies of statements and documents:
The primary issue in this case is whether the accused is entitled to copies of statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and documents sought to be used at trial. The petitioners, facing prosecution for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, sought these copies on the grounds that the case, though instituted on a complaint, was effectively an investigated case. The trial court ruled that the accused would be entitled to copies only when the witnesses are produced in court and the documents are filed by the complainant, but not before the commencement of the trial. The High Court, however, found this procedure to be neither "just, fair, nor reasonable" and held that the accused is entitled to complete disclosure of material at the trial's threshold.

2. Applicability of Section 173 of the CrPC:
The judgment discusses the applicability of Section 173 of the CrPC, which requires a police report to be forwarded to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. The court noted that while offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC are cognizable and typically require a report under Section 173, an offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act requires a complaint by a competent authority due to Section 6 of the Act. Consequently, the investigation did not culminate in a police report under Section 173, and the accused would not be entitled to the benefits of Section 207 of the CrPC, which mandates the furnishing of certain documents to the accused in cases instituted on a police report.

3. Principles of natural justice and right of disclosure:
The court emphasized that the right of disclosure in any trial, which affects the rights, interests, and liberties of a citizen, may be based on statutory provisions, principles of natural justice, or the mandatory requirements of a fair trial. The court referred to the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi, which established that any procedure affecting a citizen's rights must be "just, fair, and reasonable." The court held that the procedure followed in this case, which allowed the prosecution to disclose material in a piecemeal manner, was unfair and prejudicial to the accused, as it did not provide an integrated picture of the case at the trial's commencement.

4. Distinction between trials on police reports and complaints:
The court highlighted the procedural differences between trials on police reports and those on complaints. In cases instituted on a police report, the court considers the police report and accompanying documents to decide on the charge or discharge of the accused. In contrast, cases instituted on complaints typically lack prior investigation, and the court relies on evidence produced during the trial. The court noted that the procedure followed in this case, which treated it like an ordinary private complaint, was inappropriate given the police investigation that preceded the complaint.

5. Impact of the Maneka Gandhi case:
The judgment extensively discussed the impact of the Maneka Gandhi case on the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that any procedure affecting a citizen's rights must be "right, just, and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. The court applied this principle to hold that the accused in this case were entitled to complete disclosure of material at the trial's threshold, even though the proceedings were instituted on a complaint.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that while the statutory right to copies of statements and documents under Sections 173(1) and 207 of the CrPC were not available to the accused, they were entitled to complete disclosure of material at the trial's threshold based on principles of natural justice and the requirements of a fair trial. The court modified the trial court's order, directing that the petitioners be supplied with copies of statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and documents seized during the investigation before the trial's commencement, subject to the trial court's discretion regarding voluminous documents. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on July 11, 1984.