Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 361 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - furnishing of un-relied documents by the prosecution such as statements or objects/documents, seized during the course of investigation - HELD THAT:- The supply of documents to the accused persons is covered by the provisions under Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. Though Section 173 Cr.P.C. was not having any direct bearing on the issue of supply of documents to the accused, it says that on completion of investigation, the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and as per Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. - Section 208 Cr.P.C. is pertaining to supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The said Section is not relevant to the facts of the case at present. On perusal of Section 207 Cr.P.C., while the first proviso empowers the court to exclude from the copies to be furnished to the accused, such portion as covered by Section 173 (6) Cr.P,.C., the second proviso empowers the court to direct the accused to inspect the documents which in the opinion of the court are not practicable to furnish to the accused, because of the voluminous record thereof. In V.K. SASIKALA VERSUS STATE REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [2012 (9) TMI 1133 - SUPREME COURT], the accused in her application before the trial Court furnished specific details of the documents which were unmarked and un-exhibited which were in the custody of the court required by her with specific reference to the seizure list prepared by the investigating agency while filing a petition to supply the copies of the said documents. But, in the present case, the petitioner without specifying any documents which he required was contending in a vague manner and seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to supply all the documents and statements collected by it during the course of investigation, though the 2nd respondent was contending that they had supplied all the documents available with them. The petition being vague without any details of the documents sought by the petitioner, which were seized by the predicate offence agency or the 2nd respondent, is rightly rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad vide the impugned order. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge which seeks interference by this Court considering it as an abuse of process of law - Petition dismissed.
|