The Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution is permitted to submit documents or materials that were inadvertently omitted at the time of filing the chargesheet, even if such materials were available prior to that filing. This principle was reaffirmed in Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal Nos. 4718–4719 of 2024), a decision delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Summary of the Issue and Ruling
The Court addressed whether two Compact Discs (CDs), which had been seized during the investigation but were not included in the original or supplementary chargesheet, could be brought on record during the trial. Dismissing the appellant’s objections, the Court held that there is no legal prohibition against allowing the production of documents collected before the chargesheet but omitted due to inadvertence.
Quoting directly from the 2002 precedent CBI v. R.S. Pai [(2002) 5 SCC 82], which it relied upon, the Court reiterated:
“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 Bench further observed:
“This decision holds that if there is an omission on the part of the prosecution in forwarding the relied upon documents to the learned Magistrate, even after the chargesheet is submitted, the prosecution can be permitted to produce the additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation.”
Case Background
Sameer Sandhir, listed as Accused No. 7, is one of several individuals facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in a case registered as RC-217/2013/A0004 (CC No. 3 of 2013). The case involved intercepted phone calls authorized by the Ministry of Home Affairs, with two CDs containing 189 and 101 intercepted calls respectively.
These CDs were seized on May 4 and May 10, 2013, and sent for analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) on May 27, 2013. While the original chargesheet was filed on July 2, 2013, the CFSL report arrived only on October 25, 2013. A supplementary chargesheet was filed on October 30, 2013 with the CFSL report and a Section 65B certificate, but the CDs were not physically submitted to the court.
Procedural History
When the prosecution attempted to play the CDs in court during witness examination in September 2014, objections were raised by the defence. A series of applications and court orders followed, with the Delhi High Court eventually permitting the CBI to move the Special Court for the CDs’ production.
The Special Court allowed their production on February 6, 2016. The appellant challenged this before the High Court, which dismissed the petition on April 26, 2017, relying on R.S. Pai. The present appeal arose from that decision.
Parties’ Arguments
The appellant argued that the CDs could only be submitted if they were discovered during further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. Relying on Mariam Fasihuddin v. State (2024 SCC OnLine SC 58), Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [(2020) 7 SCC 1], and other precedents, it was contended that only newly unearthed material qualifies under further investigation.
Conversely, the CBI argued that the CDs were referenced in the supplementary chargesheet and omitted inadvertently, and that their production at a later stage did not violate any statutory bar or cause prejudice to the accused.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on decisions like Mariam Fasihuddin, distinguishing them on factual and doctrinal grounds. It reiterated the ratio of R.S. Pai, affirmed by a three-judge bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, 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 the charge-sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court.”
The Court clarified that the CDs were not new articles—they were seized, sent for forensic analysis, and referred to in the supplementary chargesheet. The omission to produce them, it held, did not preclude their admissibility at a later stage.
The Bench cautioned, however, that the Delhi High Court’s observations about the authenticity of the CDs were premature. It held that:
“Whether the CDs produced were the same which were seized… is something which will have to be proved by the prosecution. The issue regarding the legality of the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act ought not to have been dealt with at this stage.”
The Court left open all questions regarding the CDs’ authenticity, the validity of the Section 65B certificate, and their evidentiary value.
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeals, allowing the CBI to place the CDs on record. It permitted the appellant to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination on issues limited to the CDs.
