SONU  [Petitioner]  Vs.  CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION   [Respondent]

CRL.M.C. 1309/2023 & CRL.M.A. 5010/2023

(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)

The Delhi High Court ruled that submitting a complete version of an already existing but incomplete document does not constitute fresh evidence requiring compliance with Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court dismissed a petition filed by an accused seeking to set aside a Special Court (PC Act) order that permitted the prosecution to introduce additional evidence at a late stage in an alleged bank fraud trial. A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating that the submission of a complete screenshot from the Finacle System was merely a procedural correction rather than fresh evidence. The Court clarified that this act did not require compliance with Section 173(8) CrPC, which governs further investigation and supplementary charge sheets.

The case stemmed from a complaint by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank of Baroda regarding financial irregularities at a branch during the demonetization period. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged the accused, a Single Window Operator (SWO) at the bank, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c), and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution had completed presenting its evidence, and the trial had reached the stage of final arguments when the CBI sought to introduce a complete screenshot from the OHDTM menu of the Finacle System. This system processes and records cash deposit transactions, including transaction amounts, timestamps, and voucher numbers. The prosecution contended that the additional details were crucial in linking the accused to the alleged fraudulent transactions.

The Trial Court allowed the submission of this document and permitted the recall of four witnesses for re-examination. The accused challenged this order, arguing that Section 311 CrPC does not allow the introduction of fresh documentary evidence and that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 173(8) CrPC.The High Court had to determine whether the submission of the complete screenshot amounted to fresh evidence requiring compliance with Section 173(8) CrPC. The Court clarified that Section 173(8) applies when new material, not part of the original investigation, is introduced. Such evidence alters the prosecution’s case by adding new facts or allegations, necessitating further investigation.

However, rectification involves correcting an omission, mistake, or incomplete filing of evidence already collected during the investigation. The Court emphasized that rectification does not introduce new elements into the case but ensures that existing evidence is presented in its complete and accurate form. Applying this distinction, the Court found that the submission of the complete screenshot did not constitute fresh evidence. Since the document was already part of the record in an incomplete form, its completion did not introduce new allegations or alter the prosecution’s case. The Court held that the Trial Court’s decision was legally justified, procedurally sound, and essential for ensuring that the best possible evidence was presented for adjudication.