Supreme Court Upholds Production of CDs in Corruption Case, Clarifies Rules on Supplementary Evidence.


23 May 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Investigation >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling of Sameer Sandhir Vs Central Bureau of Investigation., concerning the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals filed by an accused in a corruption case, upholding the Delhi High Court's decision to allow the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to place two Compact Discs (CDs) on record, even though they were inadvertently omitted from the initial chargesheet. The apex court reiterated its stance that an investigating agency can produce additional documents gathered before or after investigation, provided there's no prejudice to the accused.

The case, stemming from a 2013 FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, revolves around two CDs containing intercepted telephone call records. These CDs were seized in May 2013 and sent for forensic analysis. When the first chargesheet was filed in July 2013, the forensic report was pending. Upon receiving the report in October 2013, a supplementary chargesheet was filed, referencing the CDs and the forensic findings. However, the physical CDs themselves were not submitted.

 
 

The controversy escalated during the trial when the prosecution sought to play the CDs, prompting an objection from the defense on the grounds that the CDs were neither relied upon nor filed, and copies were not supplied. This led to a series of legal challenges, with the matter going back and forth between the Special Court and the Delhi High Court.

The Core of the Dispute: Production of Omitted Evidence

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the CBI could be permitted to produce the CDs, which were undeniably available to the investigating agency at the time of filing the original chargesheet but were inadvertently omitted. The appellant argued that such material could only be introduced if it was a result of "further investigation" under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), implying new evidence.

The Supreme Court, however, relied heavily on its previous three-judge bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R S Pai and Anr (2002) 5 SCC 82), which held that the word "shall" in Section 173(5) of the CrPC (requiring production of relevant documents with the chargesheet) is directory, not mandatory. The R.S. Pai judgment explicitly states that if "some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge-sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court."

The Court also referenced another three-judge bench decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors ((2020) 7 SCC 1), which reaffirmed the R.S. Pai principle, acknowledging an exception to the general rule against filling lacunae during trial if a document was "mistakenly" not filed.

Addressing the Arguments:

The appellant's counsel contended that the R.S. Pai decision needed reconsideration, asserting that Section 173(5) CrPC should be considered mandatory, especially in light of Section 207 CrPC, which mandates supplying copies of police reports and other documents to the accused. However, the Supreme Court distinguished these arguments, stating that the R.S. Pai ruling specifically addresses the production of documents inadvertently omitted, a different scenario from the accused's right to receive copies of relied-upon documents.

The CBI, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, explained that the CDs were sent for CFSL analysis before the first chargesheet was filed, and upon receiving the report, a supplementary chargesheet was submitted. The omission of the physical CDs was termed an inadvertent error.

Key Clarifications and Caveats:

While upholding the High Court's decision to allow the production of the CDs, the Supreme Court added crucial caveats:
Authenticity and Genuineness Still Open: The Supreme Court cautioned the High Court against making observations about the authenticity or genuineness of the CDs at the stage of production. It clarified that "whether the CDs produced were the same which were seized...is something which will have to be proved by the prosecution."
Section 65B Certificate: The Court also left open the issue regarding the legality and validity of the Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, required for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
Right to Recall Witnesses: Importantly, the Court granted the appellant the liberty to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination specifically on the limited aspect of the CDs, given that the CDs were sought to be produced after some prosecution witnesses had already been examined.

In essence, the Supreme Court's ruling underscores a pragmatic approach to the production of evidence in criminal trials. While emphasizing the importance of fair trial and preventing prejudice to the accused, it allows for the rectification of genuine omissions by the prosecution, preventing technicalities from obstructing justice, particularly when the evidence is clearly referenced in filed documents.


Section 65, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872  

Section 173., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 207., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988