Rouse Court directs CBI to include all communication, notices in Delhi Excise Case

New Delhi [India], May 22 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to list all the communication, notices to witnesses and accused during investigation of Delhi Excise policy in the list of un-relied documents (URD), if agency is not relying on them. The list is directed to be filed in the court and copy of the same be supplied to accused persons, the court said.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh passed the direction while disposing of the application seeking supply of documents neither included in relied documents nor in un-relied documents.
The court ordered that all notices under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. and written communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications, documents received by CBI concerning those notices, written communications, must be included in the list of URDs if CBI does not intend to rely on them in this trial.
"This list should be filed in Court, and copies of the list of such URDs must be supplied to all accused. The accused will have the opportunity to inspect the documents of this list promptly," Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh ordered on Thursday.

However the court clarified that the inspection of unrelied documents by the accused does not hinder this Court from proceeding to hear arguments on charge, as the accused cannot rely on any un-relied document at this stage.
The court further directed that since the relied upon digital device(s) are with the FSL for mirror copy preparation and other analysis, once received by the CBI, they must be filed in Court, and copies should be given to each accused, taking care of privacy issues, if any, and thereafter the Court shall continue with the hearing on the point of charge.
While disposing of the applications the court pointed out that ample time has been granted for scrutiny of documents, no further application for the same will be entertained.
"Given the ample time provided for the accused to scrutinize the documents already supplied and to inspect unrelied documents, the earlier Court explicitly directed completion by the stated date, thus, no further applications for deficient copies of already supplied documents will be entertained going forward," the court pointed out
The court clarified that after the supply of digital device data, only one opportunity will be given for the accused to review the digital copy, after which the matter will proceed for charge arguments.
The court also referred to the order of January 19, 2024, which said that no further applications under Section 207 (Supply of documents) would be entertained on behalf of the accused; thus, any further submissions of deficient copies will not be accepted.
"It cannot be emphasized enough that ongoing inspections of URDs by the accused do not obstruct the charge arguments, as the accused can inspect those URDs but cannot rely on any at this stage. The accused persons are free to seek appropriate remedies during the trial qua URDs," the court remarked.
During the hearing on the pleas Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for CBI S P Singh had submitted that when we have not included the documents in relied upon category, then why accused persons are asking for the same. On the other hand, accused persons blame that the investigation agency is concealing some documents which may lead to their discharge.
The counsel for CBI had submitted that we have not provided phones as those have been sent for forensic examination. The phone can have objectionable material that may tarnish the image of accused and somebody else also.
He also submitted that the notices under section 91 Crpc and 160 CrPC notice to require presence are tools of investigator. These are part of case diary and these are for the perusal of the court.
Accused persons sending a lot of email related to doubts about the document. We have supplied all the documents, SPP said.
On the other hand, advocate Adit S Pujari, counsel for accused Amandeep Singh Dhall, submitted that the CBI was suppressing a document which may be needed for the discharge of his client. For discharge, all I need are these documents.
He also submitted that if CBI says the we are bombarding it with emails, I want to say it never stopped us. The love is not one sided.
Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj argued for accused Rajesh Joshi, Advocate Harsh Vohra argued for accused Ashish Mathur, counsel for Vinod Chauhan also argued.
After hearing the submissions the court reserved the order on these pleas. (ANI)