Sameer Sandhir vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

2025 INSC 776
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.4718-4719 OF 2024

Sameer Sandhir … Appellant

versus
Central Bureau of Investigation … Respondent

J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. A very short controversy arises in these appeals. The
appellant is accused No. 7, who, along with others, is facing
trial in Case No. RC-217/2013/A0004 (CC No.3 of 2013)
registered for various offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). An FIR was
rd
registered on 3 May 2013 for the offences punishable under
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the
IPC’) and Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the PC Act. The dispute
revolves around two Compact Discs.
th st
2. Between 8 January 2013 and 1 May 2013, the
Ministry of Home Affairs had granted permission to intercept
the telephone calls of accused nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. The
Signature Not Verified
Ministry of Home Affairs also granted permission during this
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.05.23
17:42:42 IST
Reason:
period to intercept the telephone calls of one Manoj Garg. On
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 1 of 15

th th
4 May 2013 and 10 May 2013, two CDs (hereafter referred
to as ‘the CDs’), containing call records of 189 and 101 calls,
th
respectively, were seized. On 27 May 2013, the CDs were
sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short,
‘the CFSL’) for analysis. Sanction was granted thereafter on
nd
2 July 2013 under Section 19 of the PC Act. A charge sheet
was filed by the respondent, the Central Bureau of
th
Investigation (CBI), on July 2, 2013. On 4 July 2013,
cognizance was taken by the Special Court of the offences
punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7, 8,
9 and 10 of the PC Act.
th
On 25 October 2013, the CFSL forwarded its report
3.
th
and original sealed CDs back to the respondent, CBI. On 30
October 2013, though a supplementary chargesheet was filed
th
along with the CFSL report, the CDs were not filed. On 11
March 2014, charges were framed against the accused.
Ultimately, the recording of the evidence of the Prosecution
th
Witnesses (PWs) commenced on 15 September 2014.
th
On 16 September 2014, while recording the evidence of
4.
PW-3, the CDs which were not filed on record were sought to
be played by the prosecution. An objection was raised by the
learned counsel representing the accused that the CDs were
neither relied upon nor filed in the Court. Moreover, copies of
the CDs were not supplied to the accused.
th
5. On 17 September 2014, the respondent-CBI filed an
application for preparing copies of the said CDs. Thereafter,
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 2 of 15

the evidence of PW-5 was recorded, and the evidence of PW-6
was partially recorded. The application made by the
respondent, CBI, was strongly opposed by some of the
th
accused. On 27 September 2014, the learned Special Judge
passed an order allowing the application of the respondent,
CBI. As the appellant was not heard before the order was
passed, a quashing petition was filed by the appellant before
th
the Delhi High Court. By the order dated 12 May 2015, the
Delhi High Court allowed the petition. While setting aside the
order dated September 27, 2014, the Delhi High Court issued
a direction to the learned Special Court to permit the
respondent-CBI to file an application to bring on record the
CDs.
6. Accordingly, an application was filed by the respondent-
CBI for production of the CDs by invoking Section 173(5) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’).
th
On 13 October 2015, an order was passed by the learned
Special Judge directing playing of the two CDs in the Court
and comparing the same with unsealed CDs which were in
Malkhana of the respondent-CBI. An application made by the
accused opposing the prayer for playing the CDs was rejected
st
by the order dated 31 October 2015. A petition was filed by
the appellant before the Delhi High Court challenging the
th st
orders dated 13 October 2015 and 31 October 2015.
th
7. On 6 November 2015, the orders were set aside by the
Delhi High Court with a direction to the Special Court to first
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 3 of 15

decide whether the application of the respondent-CBI for
th
production of CDs can be allowed. On 6 February 2016, the
learned Special Judge allowed the application of the
respondent-CBI to place the two CDs on record. On the same
day, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application
made by the appellant for return of chargesheet. The order
th
dated 6 February 2016 allowing the application made by the
respondent-CBI was challenged before the Delhi High Court
by the appellant by filing a quashing petition. By the
th
impugned judgment dated 26 April 2017, the petition was
dismissed by the High Court. The High Court basically relied
upon the decision of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in
the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. R S Pai and
1
Anr .
SUBMISSIONS
8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the CDs were available to the prosecution/
investigating agency at the time of filing of the original
chargesheet. His submission is that the CDs could have been
produced only if they were seized while carrying out further
investigation in accordance with sub-section (8) of Section
173 of the CrPC. Reliance was placed on the decision of this
Court in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by
2
Adugodi Police Station & Anr . The submission of the
learned senior counsel is that the material available to the
1 (2002) 5 SCC 82
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 4 of 15

prosecution prior to the filing of the chargesheet cannot be
used by the prosecution under the guise of further
investigation, as only the new material can be collected during
further investigation. The learned senior counsel also relied
upon what is held in the case of
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
3
. His submission is
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors
that in view of the said decision, additional documents can be
produced by the prosecution only when the trial is at the
nascent stage and the charge is not framed. The learned
senior counsel submitted that the view taken by this Court in
1
the case of R S Pai requires reconsideration as sub-section
(5) of Section 173 of the CrPC cannot be held to be directory.
The learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions of this
Court in the cases of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu
4
Sharma v. State (NCT) and V K Sasikala v. State rep. by
5
Superintendent of Police . His submission is that in both
decisions, this Court held that Section 207 of the CrPC is
1
mandatory. He submitted that in the case of , this
R S Pai
Court relied upon its decision in the case of Narayan Rao v.
6
State of Andhra Pradesh, which interprets sub-section (4)
of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for
short, ‘the CrPC of 1898’). He submitted that the language
used in sub-section (4) of Section 173 of the CrPC of 1898
was completely different from the language used in sub-
section (5) of Section 173 of the CrPC. He submitted that the
3 (2020) 7 SCC 1
4 (2010) 6 SCC 1
5 (2012) 9 SCC 771
6 AIR 1957 SC 737
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 5 of 15

1
decision in the case of R.S. Pai is no longer good law.
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
9.
th
the respondent-CBI submitted that the CDs were seized on 4
th th
and 10 May 2013, and they were sent to the CFSL on 27
nd
May 2013. When the first chargesheet was filed on 2 July
2013, the CFSL report was not available. He pointed out that
th
the CFSL report was received on 25 October 2013.
Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet was filed, and the
CFSL report was produced along with the supplementary
chargesheet. He submitted that, inadvertently, the CDs were
not produced. He submitted that there is no prejudice to the
appellant if the CDs are ordered to be produced. He
submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of
R.S.
1
Pai does not call for reconsideration at all.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
We have already noted the factual aspects of the case.
10.
The factual aspects which emerge can be summarized as
under:
th th
The CDs were seized on 4 and 10 May 2013;
a.
th
On 27 May 2013, the CDs were sent in a sealed
b.
envelope by the respondent to the CFSL;
nd
c. On 2 July 2013, when the first chargesheet was
filed, the opinion/report of the CFSL was not
received;
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 6 of 15

th
d. On 25 October 2013, the report of the CFSL was
received; and
th
e. On 30 October 2013, supplementary chargesheet
was filed under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The
CFSL reports were filed with the chargesheet. The
supplementary chargesheet refers to the seizure of
CDs and the fact that the specimen voices of the
accused, including the appellant, were recorded
and forwarded to the CFSL along with the seized
CDs in a sealed envelope. Along with the
chargesheet, apart from the original CFSL report
and other documents, a Certificate under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Evidence Act’), was produced.
11. It is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in
1
the case of . Paragraph 7 of the said decision is
R.S.Pai
material, which reads thus:
“7. From the aforesaid sub-sections,
it is apparent that normally, the
investigating officer is required to
produce all the relevant documents at
the time of submitting the charge-
sheet. At the same time, as there is
no specific prohibition, it cannot
be held 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
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 7 of 15

charge-sheet, it is always open to
the investigating officer to produce
the same with the permission of
the court. In our view, considering
the preliminary stage of prosecution
and the context in which the police
officer is required to forward to the
Magistrate all the documents or the
relevant extracts thereof on which the
prosecution proposes to rely, the word
“shall” used in sub-section (5) cannot
be interpreted as mandatory, but as
directory. Normally, the documents
gathered during the investigation
upon which the prosecution wants
to rely are required to be forwarded
to the Magistrate, but if there is
some omission, it would not mean
that the remaining documents
cannot be produced subsequently.
Analogous provision under Section
173(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 was considered by
this Court in Narayan Rao v. State of
A.P. [AIR 1957 SC 737 : 1958 SCR
283 : 1957 Cri LJ 1320] (SCR at p.
293) and it was held that the word
“shall” occurring in sub-section (4) of
Section 173 and sub-section (3) of
Section 207-A is not mandatory but
only directory. Further, the scheme of
sub-section (8) of Section 173 also
makes it abundantly clear that even
after the charge-sheet is submitted,
further investigation, if called for, is
not precluded. If further investigation
is not precluded then there is no
question of not permitting the
prosecution to produce additional
documents which were gathered prior
to or subsequent to the investigation.
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 8 of 15

In such cases, there cannot be any
prejudice to the accused. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the Special
Court cannot be sustained. ”
(emphasis added)
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.
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
relied upon what is held in paragraph 38 of the decision in
2
the case of , which reads thus:
Mariam Fasihddin & Anr
“38. It is a matter of record that in
the course of ‘further investigation’,
no new material was unearthed by
the investigating agency. Instead, the
supplementary chargesheet relies
upon the Truth Lab report dated
15.07.2013, obtained by Respondent
No. 2, which was already available
when the original chargesheet was
filed. The term ‘further investigation’
stipulated in
Section 173(8) CrPC obligates the
officer-in-charge of the concerned
police station to ‘obtain further
evidence, oral or documentary’, and
only then forward a supplementary
report regarding such evidence, in the
prescribed form. ”
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 9 of 15

This decision is of the Bench of two Hon’ble Judges. It does
not make any departure from the decision of this Court in the
1
case of R.S.Pai .
13. Another Bench of this Court, consisting of three Hon’ble
Judges, in its decision in the case of Arjun Panditrao
3
, in paragraph 55, reiterated the law laid down in
Khotkar
1
the case of . Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the said
R.S.Pai
decision read thus:

Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 10 of 15

Strong reliance was placed on the decisions of this
14.
4
Court in the cases of Sidharth Vashisht and V K
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 11 of 15

5
Sasikala . These two decisions operate in completely
different fields. The decisions are on the right of the accused
to get the copies of all the relied upon documents. Basically,
these two decisions deal with Section 207 of the CrPC, which
deals with the supply of a copy of the Police report and other
documents to the accused. In the present case, the question
is whether the respondent-CBI can be permitted to produce
the CDs which were inadvertently not produced along with
the supplementary chargesheet. Even if the documents or
things which were inadvertently not produced along with the
chargesheet are allowed to be produced, the decisions in the
4 5
cases of and will have no
Sidharth Vashisht V K Sasikala
application.
15. In the facts of the case, the CDs were seized and
referred for forensic analysis to the CFSL along with voice
samples of the accused. The CDs were referred to in the
supplementary chargesheet. After the report of the CFSL was
received, the supplementary chargesheet was filed for placing
on record the said report. Therefore, when the CDs were
sought to be produced, in a sense, they were not new articles;
the CDs were very much referred to in the supplementary
th
chargesheet filed on 13 October 2013. There was only an
omission on the part of the respondent-CBI to produce the
CDs. Therefore, applying the law laid down in the case of
1
R.S.Pai , the impugned judgments of the Special Court and
the High Court cannot be faulted with. We do not see how the
1
decision in the case of R.S.Pai requires reconsideration.
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 12 of 15

However, in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the impugned
16.
judgment, the High Court has observed thus:
“20. Since, these documents are
supported by required certificates
under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act, their authenticity
cannot be suspected at this stage.
The Trial Court after hearing the
contents of the CDs played in the
Court was, prima facie, of the view
that the contents of these CDs were
in consonance with the transcript on
record. As per prosecution, contents
of both the CDs were found identical
and there was no question of variance
in their contents.
21. After the filing of the charge-sheet
by the prosecution, the Trial Court
forms its opinion to take cognizance
without ascertaining the authenticity,
genuineness and veracity of the
documents filed along with it; it is to
be done during trial. In the instant
case, merely because the CDs were
filed at somewhat belated stage
after the filing of the charge-
sheet/supplementary charge-sheet,
the prosecution is not expected to
prove their authenticity and
genuineness beyond reasonable
doubt at this stage. The petition and
other accused persons will be at
liberty to challenge the admissibility/
authenticity of CDs during trial. ”
(emphasis added)
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 13 of 15

In our view, the High Court ought not to have gone into
17.
the issue of the authenticity of the CDs allowed to be
produced. Whether the CDs produced were the same which
th th
were seized on 4 May 2013 and 10 May 2013, 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. Even if the production was allowed, the issue of the
CDs' authenticity remains open.
18. In the circumstances, we do not find fault with the
impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court. However, the
issue of whether the CDs produced were the same which were
th th
seized on 4 May 2013 and 10 May 2013 is left open. The
issue regarding the validity of the certificate under Section
65B of the Evidence Act is also left open. The issue of the
authenticity of the CDs is kept open. The CDs were sought to
be produced after the recording of evidence of some of the
prosecution witnesses. It will also be open for the appellant
to recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination on a
limited aspect of the CDs.
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 14 of 15

19. Subject to what is held above, the appeals are
dismissed.
.………..…..………………...J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…….……..…………………...J.
(Augustine George Masih)
New Delhi;
May 23, 2025.
Criminal Appeal Nos.4718-4719 of 2024 Page 15 of 15