S.173(8) CrPC Inapplicable To Additional Document Already Part Of Record In Incomplete Form, Without Introducing New Allegations: Delhi HC

While upholding the Trial Court's order allowing the prosecution to introduce an additional document, the Delhi High Court has observed that the introduction of the document, which was already a part of the record in an incomplete form and did not introduce any new facts or allegations, did not amount to placing 'fresh evidence'. The Court stated that introducing the additional document was a 'rectification' and thus compliance with Section 173(8) of the CrPC, requiring a supplementary chargesheet, was not necessary.Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was considering the petitioner/accused's challenge to the Trail Court's judgment. The respondent/CBI alleged that the petitioner, employed as a Single Window Operator at Bank of Baroda, was involved in falsifying cash deposit slips and altering transaction records. The charges were filed against the petitioner under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act along with Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 201 IPC. Before the Trial Court, CBI filed an application seeking permission to place on record a complete screenshot from the OHDTM menu of the Finacle System, which is used for processing and recording cash deposit transactions. CBI filed this application after the completion of final arguments. CBI submitted that the screenshot was already placed on record earlier but was incomplete and thus that the new document/screenshot contained important details including a transaction number linking the petitioner to the offence. CBI also sought recall and re-examination of four witnesses on the grounds that their testimonies were based on incomplete records and that the missing information/screenshot was necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. However, the petitioner opposed the applications. He contended that the screenshot constituted fresh evidence and could only be brought on record through further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The petitioner further argued that the recall of witnesses after the closure of prosecution evidence and after final arguments had commenced would be highly prejudicial to his right to a fair trial as it placed him at a severe disadvantage and that it would amount to procedural unfairness.The Trial Court allowed CBI's application, noting that the screenshot was already a part of the record and that its completion did not amount to fresh evidence. It also allowed recall of witness on the ground that their testimonies needed to be examined in light of the additional document/screenshot and allowing their re-examination would ensure that the court concerned had access to a complete factual record. Introduction Of Additional Document/Screenshot Distinguishing between 'fresh evidence' and 'rectification', the Court observed that fresh evidence means new material that was not a part of the original investigation and does not alter the nature of the prosecution's case by introducing new facts or allegations against the accused. Whereas, rectification involves the correction of an omission, mistake or incomplete filing of evidence that was already collected during the investigation. Here, the Court was of the view that the screenshot did not constitute fresh evidence as it was already a part of the record in an incomplete form. It observed “Applying this distinction, this Court finds that the introduction of the complete screenshot does not constitute fresh evidence. The document in question was already a part of record in an incomplete form, and its completion does not introduce any new allegation, new findings, or alter the prosecution's case in any material manner.” Pursuing the Trial Court's order, the Court noted that the Trial Court observed that the document was already a part of the record and its omission was a procedural oversight. It had noted that the prosecution was not attempting to introduce a new piece of evidence, rather providing full details of an already submitted document for proper adjudication.Furthermore, on the petitioner's contention that the screenshot could not have been introduced without requisite permission under Section 173(8) CrPC, the Court observed that Section 173(8) of the CrPC did not apply to the present case. It noted that Section 173(8) CrPC applies only in cases where police conduct 'further investigation' after filing the final report and obtaining new evidence that was not originally collected. It stated “The application of Section 173(8) of the CrPC hinges on whether the prosecution's act of submitting the complete screenshot amounts to further investigation. Section 173(8) of the CrPC applies only when the police conduct further investigation after filing the final report and obtain new evidence that was not originally collected. In such cases, a supplementary chargesheet must be filed before the Magistrate to ensure procedural fairness.”Here, the Court observed that neither further investigation was conducted by the police nor any additional evidence was collected. It thus held...

S.173(8) CrPC Inapplicable To Additional Document Already Part Of Record In Incomplete Form, Without Introducing New Allegations: Delhi HC

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sanjana Dadmi

S.173(8) CrPC Inapplicable To Additional Document Already Part Of Record In Incomplete Form, Without Introducing New Allegations: Delhi HC

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers