Nagpur: Can the witness be allowed to directly send additional documents, which are not part of the accusation sheet, in the midst of the trial of the court session? “No”, said the Nagpur bench Bombay High Court.
According to the High Court, the purpose of filing submission after completion of the investigation, along with documents where prosecution desires to rely on dependence, will be defeated if the witness allowed freedom.
“The provisions of Perusal of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) show that there is no provision for witnesses to directly produce additional documents during the session trial and when recording the proof,” Pitale Manish justice is governed.
While hearing the request by Bhagyashree Wasanankar, through Counsel Deven Chauhan and CB Barve, the judge explained that it would become a public prosecutor (PP), which made strategic calls like what would be examined or imposed by witnesses.
“This is for PP to make calls regarding documents that rely on dependence will be placed during the trial and therefore all of these documents are placed on a note along with the load sheet and the copy is equipped with the defendant.” The applicant, one of the accused of waiting before the court session, faced charges of running a ponzi scheme and cheated thousands of investors.
He has been booked under Sections 420, 406, 409, 506 and 120 B-B from IPC along with section 45 (1) (a) and 45 (s) Bank of India (RBI) reserve law, 1949, Section 24 ( 1) and the market of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) ACT, 1992.
A violation below section 3 Protection of Maharashtra Interest Depositor (MPID) (in the Financial Agency) ACT, 1999, has been added later.
A witness Ashok Lanjungewar look for permission from the session court to produce additional documents who argue that they were previously wrong place.
These documents include the receipt and the number of vouchers invested by the HOME Wealth Management Limited.
While allowing its application on December 11, 2020, the judge has rejected satisfaction raised by Wasanankar lawyers and was accused of another.
The applicant challenged the decision in HC which argued that the Witness’s step was unknown to CRPC and it would be a major prejudice for all accused if additional documents were allowed to be submitted.
It stated that the court of trial had failed to appreciate the satisfaction of the Petitioner, Justice Pitale said the court court did not consider that it allowed the production of additional documents by the witness would reduce the defendant by seizing their defenses.
“CRPC does not reflect on any procedure for witnesses to directly generate documents during the trial.
The procedure known to the law is through a further investigation channel under the part 173 (8) CRPC, as held by the Supreme Court,” said the Judge.