CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus R.S. PAI AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 03-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-~ 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
A 
v. 
R.S. PAI AND ANR. 
APRIL 3, 2U02 
[M.B. SHAH, BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 173-Scope and interpretation of-Criminal trial-Charge 
sheet-Submission of-Subsequent thereto production of additional documents C 
gathered during investigation-Held, permissible in such a case no prejudice 
is caused to accused-Word 'shall' in Section 173 (5) held not mandatory. 
In a criminal trial, CBI filed charge sheet against the accused persons. 
Subsequent thereto, CBI filed an application seeking permission to produce 
additional documents which were gathered during investigation but were not D 
produced before the Court The Special Court rejected the application of CBI. 
In appeal to this Court on the question whether prosecution can produce · 
additional documents which are gathered during investigation after submitting 
charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Allowing the appeal preferred by CBI, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. It is apparent from sub-sections (5) and (8) of Section 173 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that normally, the investigating Officer 
is required to produce all the relevant docnments at the time or submitting 
the charge sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot F 
be said that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If 
some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the 
time of submitting the report or charge sheet, it is always open to the 
investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court 
Considering the preliminary stage of prosecution and the context in which G 
police officer is required to forward to the magistrate all the documents or 
the relevant extracts thereof on which prosecution proposes to rely, the word 
'shall used in sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as 
directory. [893-D-F) 
2. Further, the scheme of sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it H 
889 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A abundantly clear that even after the charge sheet is submitted, further 
investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further ;n_vestigation is not 
precluded then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to 
produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent 
to investigation. In such cases, there cannot be any prejudice to the accused. 
Hence, the impugned order passed.by the Special Court cannot be sustained. 
B 
[893-G-H; 894-A] 
Narayan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, [1958) SCR 283, referred 
to. 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
I 045 of 2000. 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2000 of the Special Court 
(Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) at Mumbai in Misc. 
Application No. 338 of 2000 in Special Case No. 3 of 1997. 
P.P. Malhotra, Tara Chandra Sharma, P. Parmeswaran and B. Krishna 
Prashad for the Appellant. 
Pravin, Yashank Adhyaru, M.P. Rao and Ms. Niharika Bahl for J.S. 
Wad & Co. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Short question is-whether prosecution can produce additional 
documents which are gathered during investigation, after submitting charge-
sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 
The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in 
Securities) at Bombay by judgment and order dated 26th July, 2000, rejected 
Miscellaneous Application No. 338 of 2000 in Special Case No.3 of 1997 
filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for production of additional 
documents in a case where application for discharging the respondents was 
G filed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the CBI has preferred this appeal. 
The prosecution story in brief is that-during the period 2.4.1992 to 
20.5.1992, the FIM Division, Mumbai of Syndicate Bank received funds 
aggregating to Rs.132 .23 crores for Portfolio Management from Oil Industries 
H Development Board, New Delhi. It was alleged that R. Sundaresan, the then 
Divisional Manager of the Bank and other bank officials conspired during the 
\_ 
·F 
-~.-
f 
~J 
I 
• 
C.B.I. v. R.S. PAI [SHAH, J.] 
891 
above said period at Mumbai along with Directors and office bearers of A 
Mis Fair Growth Investments Ltd. and Mis Fair Growth Financial Services 
Ltd. and by dishonestly and fraudulently abusing their po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.