The instant application is filed by the applicant who happens to be original accused no.2 in C.B.I. Special Case No.23/06, praying to quash and set aside the order dated 26.10.2010, rendered by learned Special Judge, CBI Court No.4, in C.B.I. Criminal Misc. Application No.160 of 2010. The applicant-original accused no.2 has filed aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure to get back documents containing original mortgage papers of Flat No.304 and 704 in Aasha and Flat No.402, 704, 904,1002 in Kiran for account of M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Traders from page no.1 to 199. Learned C.B.I. Court vide order dated 26.10.2010, dismissed the said application filed by the applicant-original accused no.2 under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure hence, this petition is filed under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ms.Sandhya Natani, learned advocate for the applicant-original accused no.2 submitted that even the bare perusal of the police papers including the charge-sheet would reveal that these documents were genuine, and therefore, it was not necessary for the C.B.I. Court to retain those genuine documents till the completion of the trial.
Ms.Sandhya Natani, learned advocate for the applicant-original accused no.2 took me through certain observations made by the C.B.I. Court in the impugned order more particularly Paragraph No.7 and Paragraph No.9 and submitted that except the bare observation made by the concerned Court that those documents are very crucial and important for deciding the fate of the criminal case, no just and sufficient reasons are assigned as to how the Trial Court considered those documents as crucial to determine the criminal case pending before it. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order requires interference by this Court and the matter deserves admission and consideration.
Mr.Y.N.Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent no.1-C.B.I., MR.V.N.Sevak, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and Mr.K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.3-State opposed the admission of this matter and submitted that once the Trial Court in the order dated 26.10.2010 after considering the documents sought to be returned back by the applicant-original accused no.2, came to the conclusion that during the course of trial those documents are required and they are crucial to decide the fate of the criminal case, it cannot be said that the concerned Trial Court exceeded its power or that the discretion exercised by the Trial Court amounts the arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers.
Considering the impugned order rendered by the Trial Court, so also the copy of an application filed by the applicant-original accused no.2 before the Trial Court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it transpires that only reason assigned by the applicant- original accused no.2 to have interim custody of these documents during the pendecy of the aforementioned criminal case was that those documents were genuine. Except that no ground is made out as to why the custody of those documents was urgently required and the applicant-original accused no.2 cannot wait till the final out-come of the Trial Court.
In the aforesaid background, if the impugned order rendered by the Trial Court is considered more particularly considering Paragraph-7 in the order, it has been clearly observed that the documents for which interim custody was requested were shown as D-66 to D-101 in C.B.I. Special Case No.23/06. The Trial Court has observed that these documents are required for proving the case against the accused during the trial and also to determine the respective role played by the accused. The Trial Court further observed that those documents would also be required to prove the alleged unlawful benefit which the accused have received from the concerned institution. Ultimately in Paragraph-7 in the impugned order, it has been specifically observed that the said documents are very crucial and cannot be released under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While arriving at such conclusion, the Trial Court takes into consideration the reply filed by the C.B.I. at Exh.8 before the Trial Court. It is further observed that the trial of the aforementioned criminal case has already been commenced. In Paragraph No.9, in the impugned order, the above discussion made in Paragraph No.7 by the Trial Court has been reiterated and ultimately an application preferred by the applicant-original accused no.2 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be rejected.
In the above view of the matter, the fact is clear that the aforesaid criminal case is of the Year-2006 and the trial of said case is going on before the Trial Court. The Trial Court examined the documents for which the application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed along with relevant investigation papers and came to the conclusion that the custody of those documents cannot be parted with when the Trial itself is in progress.
Moreover, as stated above, except the reason that according to the applicant-original accused no.2 those documents were genuine, and therefore, interim custody of those documents was asked for. Except above reason, no ground was made out by the applicant-original accused no.2 as to why and for what reason, during the pendency of the trial, those documents were required.
Resultantly, no interference by this Court is warranted in the impugned order rendered by the Trial Court exercising the power vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application, therefore, does not require any admission or consideration and is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
For the foregoing reasons, application stands dismissed.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.) Girish