LexDR. RAJESH TALWAR AND ANR. versus C.B.I. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 10 S.C.R. 504 DR. RAJESH TALWAR AND ANR. v. C.B.I. AND ANR. (Special leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7966 of 2013) OCTOBER 8, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Criminal Trial -Application u/s.233 r/w. s.91 Cr.P.C. by accused seeking reports of scientific test conducted on 3 c persons who were initially suspected accused in the case - Application disposed of by trial court - Petition u/s.482 seeking the reports rejected by the High Court on the ground that the application was vexatious and intended to delay the proceedings - Held: Criminal Courts are not obliged to accede 0 to the request made by any party to entertain and allow application for additional evidence, and are bound in terms of s.233(3) Cr.P. C. to refuse such request, if it appears that they are made in order to vex the proceedings or delay the same - In the facts of the case, it is evident that the accused E have been adopting dilatory tactics - Hence, the petition rejected. Se/vi and Ors. vs. State of Kamataka (2010) 7 SCC 263: 2010 (5) SCR 381; Se/vi J. Jayala/ithaa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2013 (12) SCALE 234; Smt. F Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat AIR1989 SC 1335: 1989 (1) SCR 509; Zahira Habibul/ah Sheikh (5) vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2006 SC 1367: 2006 (2) SCR 1081; Capt. Amarinder Singh vs. Parkash Singh Badal and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 260: 2009 (9) SCR 194; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs. State G (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2012 SC 750: 2012 (1) SCR 64; Natasha Singh vs. CBI (2013) 5 sec 741 - relied on. 504 H DR. RAJESH TALWAR AND ANR. v. C.B.I. AND ANR. 505 Case Law Reference: A 2010 (5) SCR 381 relied on Para 10 2013 (12) SCALE 234 relied on Para 10 1989 (1) SCR 509 relied on Para 10 B 2006 (2) SCR 1081 relied on Para 10 2009 (9) SCR 194 relied on Para 10 2012 (1) SCR 64 relied on Para 10 c (2013) 5 sec 741 relied on Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Crl.} No. 7966 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2013 of the D High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/s. 482 No. 20215 of 2013. U.U. Lalit, Sandeep Kapur, Shivek Trehan, Niharika Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala (for Karanjawala & Co.) for E the Appellants. Siddharth Luthra, ASG, Rajiv Nanda, Padma Laks.hmi Nigam, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Supriya Juneja, B.V. Bairam Das, Anandana Handa, Shiv Pande, Hemant Shah for the Respondents. F The Order of the Court was delivered by S.A. BOBDE, J. 1. This special leave petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2013, G passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No.20215 of 2013 whereby the petitioners' prayer for documents pertaining to scientific tests made in their application 405/Kha dated 11.6.2013 filed under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') read with Section 91 was rejected. 2. The petitioners are being tried for charges of committing the murder of their daughter Arushi and their domestic helper B Hemraj in their house. At the initial stage, the investigation was conducted by the U.P. Police, however, it was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI'). A closure report was submitted before the Magistrate who disagreed with it and has issued the process c to the petitioners for the charge of committing the double murder. 3. The present stage of the trial is that the evidence of the prosecution is closed and the statements of the accused are D being recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The application in question under Section 311 for examining 7 other left over witnesses was moved at this stage. Alongwith this application, another application under Section 233 Cr.PC read with Section 91 has been moved on 11.6.2013, in respect of the reports of certain tests conducted on 3 persons who at one time were E suspected accused and had been in police custody, namely, Krishna, Raj Kumar and Vijay Mandal. By this application, the petitioners' sought the following reports: (i) Narco-analysis test reports and CD of Krishna F conducted at FSL Bangalore; (ii) Narco-analysis test reports and CD of Rajkumar conducted at FSL Bangalore; (iii) Narco-analysis test reports and CD of Vijay Mandal G conducted at FSL Bangalore; H (iv) Brain mapping test of Rajkum
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.