By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAR 22, 2013: THE DRI by a petition seeks to invoke inherent powers of the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside of an order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Additional CMM, New Delhi whereby in the complaint case filed by the Petitioner, directions were issued to it to supply copies of the documents which consisted of more than 300 pages.

The short facts are that a prosecution under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was launched by the DRI against the Respondents in connection with the evasion of Customs Duty to the tune of Rs.5,80,66,992/-. It is averred in the Petition that the Respondents were directed to be summoned for 03.12.2007. The DRI filed original documents on 02.08.2007 which are duly annexed. On 20.01.2010 when the case was fixed for recording the Petitioner's evidence and its witness was present, the Respondents sought to raise a plea for supply of the documents filed in support of the complaint by the DRI.

Opining that since no effective hearing would be possible without the copies of the documents being made available to the Respondents a direction was issued to the Petitioner to supply the documents.

It is this order of the Addl. CMM that the Petitioner seeks to challenge on the technical ground that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obligates a complainant, in a case instituted otherwise on a police report, to supply the copies of the documents.

The Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no provision in the Code on the basis of which an accused could claim the copies of the documents filed with the complaint; that the provision of 173(4) of the Code is applicable only to the police reports filed by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station.

The Counsel for the respondent urged that irrespective of the provision of law, the Respondents were entitled to be supplied the copies of the documents filed with the complaint to have a fair trial; that forcing a person to face trial without being provided with the copies of the documents, which are sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against him, would be violative of the principle of equality before law and equal protection of law under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court inter alia observed -

"9. The question for consideration is whether the Petitioner instead of supplying the copies of the documents to the Respondents and giving them an opportunity of fair trial ought to have approached this Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to keep away the documents from the Respondents which are the very basis of the Complaint.

10. As per Section 482 of the Code, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers may make such orders as may be necessary (i) to give effect to any order under this Code, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The powers under the section, though wide, have to be exercised sparingly, carefully with caution and only when such exercise is justified."

After citing the Supreme Court decisions in Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 570 and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, the High Court held -

"13. The Petitioner has not been able to make out a case or to show that the order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the learned ACMM was abuse of the process of the Court or that the order is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice.

14. On the other hand, in order to have a fair trial and to have its case expedited, the Petitioner (DRI) ought to have supplied the Respondents with the copies of the documents promptly so that the trial could have proceeded. The Petitioner (DRI) is unable to make out a case for invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. Rather, the filing of the Petition appears to be mala fide; the same is accordingly dismissed."

(See 2013-TIOL-221-HC-DEL-CUS)