LexMANJEET SINGH KHERA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 511 MANJEET SINGH KHERA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5897 of 2013) AUGUST 21, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Criminal Trial - Supply of the complaint or content thereof A B - To the accused - Whether binding on the prosecution - Held: The complaint, in the instant case received by Anti- C Corruption Bureau, only triggered the investigation - It did not form the foundation of the case o the FIR - The complaint was not part of the police report - Therefore, non-supply of the complaint or the contents thereof do not violate the principle of fair trial - The complaint was not part of the police D report - Therefore, non-supply of the complaint or the contents thereof do not violate the principle of fair trial - The complaint has no relevance to the context of the prosecution in the instant case, and in no manner prejudices the accused - Special Leave Petition against the order of High Court E whereby the plea for production of the complaint was rejected, dismissed. V.K. Sasikala vs. State Represented by Superintendent of Police (2012) 9 SCC 771: 2012 (10) SCR 641 - F distinguished. Case Law Reference: 2012 (10) SCR 641 distinguished Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal G No. 5897 of 2013. From the judgment and Order dated 25.02.2013 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1020 of 2011 511 H 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A Amol Chital (for Pragya Baghel) for the Petitioner. The Order of the Court was delivered by: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the prosecution is bound B to produce the original complaint/application filed by an unknown person, based on which an inquiry was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau. 2. The petitioner (first accused) along with three others c moved an application before the Special Sessions Court of Greater Bombay for a direction to the prosecution/Anti Corruption Bureau to produce the original complaint/application filed by an unknown person, leading the accused person to be charge-sheeted for offences under Section 13(2) read with D 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner submitted that on the basis of that complaint an open enquiry No.31/198 was conducted and following that Special Case No.39 of 1999 was registered E against the accused person. It was brought out that one complaint/application was received by the Anti Corruption Bureau and copy of that application was forwarded to the Home Department. PW1 had deposed that he could not disclose the name of the person who had sent that complaint. It was F mentioned therein that the first accused was having huge - movable and immovable property at Bombay, Aurangabad and Nagpur. The first accused wanted a copy of the original complaint to be produced before the court as well as the name of the person who had sent that complaint. G 4. The prosecution resisted the application preferred by the first accused contending that the prosecution would not be relying upon the complaint/application sought to be produced. On the other hand, discreet enquiry was conducted based on H that application and after collecting sufficient materials, the MANJEET SINGH KHERA v. STATE OF 513 MAHARASHTRA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] prosecution lodged first information report and thereafter A investigation was carried out. Further it was pointed out that prosecution cannot examine the person who gave the complainUapplication, otherwise no person would pass on any secret information to the Anti Corruption Bureau. 5. The Special Judge, Prevention of Anti Corruption, found B no basis in the application calling upon for the production of the original complaint as well as the name of the complainant, who had sent the complaint and rejected the application vide his order dated 29.01.2011, which was confirmed by the High Court on 25.02.2013, against which this special leave petition has C been preferred. 6. Shri Amol Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not interested in getting the name of the person who made the complaint, but wanted D to know the contents of the complaint, which cannot be said to be secret information. Learned counsel also submitted that prosecution cannot exercise privilege of non-di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.