Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih held that prosecution may produce additional documents post-chargesheet, even if earlier omitted, as long as no prejudice is caused to the accused. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sameer Sandhir versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2025). 

What was the Background of Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025) Case? 

• The appellant Sameer Sandhir was accused No. 7 in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Case No. RC-217/2013/A0004.  
• An FIR was registered on 3rd May 2013 for offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  
• Between 8th January 2013 and 1st May 2013, the Ministry of Home Affairs had granted permission to intercept telephone calls of several accused persons and one Manoj Garg. 
• Two Compact Discs (CDs) containing call records of 189 and 101 calls respectively were seized on 4th May 2013 and 10th May 2013.  
• These CDs were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for analysis on 27th May 2013.  
• The CBI filed the original chargesheet on 2nd July 2013, but at that time the CFSL report was not available.  
• On 25th October 2013, the CFSL forwarded its report and original sealed CDs back to the CBI. 
• A supplementary chargesheet was filed on 30th October 2013 along with the CFSL report, but the CDs were inadvertently not produced before the court. 
•  During the trial proceedings in September 2014, when the prosecution sought to play the CDs while recording evidence of witnesses, the defence objected on the ground that the CDs were neither relied upon nor filed in court, and copies were not supplied to the accused. 
• The CBI then filed applications seeking permission to produce the CDs on record, which led to prolonged litigation through the trial court and High Court before reaching the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that if there is an omission on the part of the prosecution in forwarding relied upon documents to the learned Magistrate, even after the chargesheet is submitted, the prosecution can be permitted to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation.  
• The Court emphasized that the word "shall" used in sub-section (5) of Section 173 CrPC cannot be interpreted as mandatory but as directory, considering the preliminary stage of prosecution. 
• The Court noted that in the present case, the CDs were seized and referred for forensic analysis along with voice samples of the accused and were specifically referred to in the supplementary chargesheet filed on 30th October 2013. 
• When the CDs were sought to be produced, they were not new articles but were very much part of the investigation already conducted, and there was merely an omission on the part of the CBI to produce them physically. 
• The Court clarified that the issue of whether the produced CDs were the same as those seized, their authenticity, and the validity of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act remains open for determination during trial. 
• The Court further observed that procedural lapses in submitting evidence can be remedied post-chargesheet provided there is no prejudice to the accused, and the accused retains the right to challenge the admissibility and authenticity of such documents during trial.  
• The principle established in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai(2002) was reaffirmed, allowing rectification of inadvertent omissions if they do not compromise the fundamental rights of the accused. 

What is Section 193 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) ? 

• Section 193 of the BNSS replaces Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and governs the submission of police investigation reports to Magistrates upon completion of inquiry into criminal offences. 
• Section 193(6) specifically applies to cases falling under section 190, which deals with cognizance of offences by Magistrates, thereby establishing a procedural safeguard for fair trial principles in the criminal justice system. 
• Section 193(6)(a) creates a statutory obligation for police officers to forward "all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely" along with the investigation report, ensuring comprehensive disclosure of prosecution evidence to the Magistrate. 
• Section 193(6)(b) mandates the simultaneous forwarding of "statements recorded under section 180 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses," ensuring that foundational witness evidence is contemporaneously provided to the judicial authority. 
• The provision ensures that the Magistrate has complete information before taking cognizance and subsequently facilitates the accused's fundamental right to receive all relevant documents as part of their defence preparation under section 230. 
• Sub-section (6) creates a mandatory statutory obligation rather than a discretionary power, thereby strengthening procedural integrity and ensuring transparency in the investigation process within the criminal justice framework.