Brief Background Of The Judgement
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with providing copies of documents to the accused at the pre-trial stage, is being interpreted and applied in the case of Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The prosecution argued that it was only required to submit copies of the papers it relied upon, but the accused in this case demanded copies of every document obtained by it during the inquiry.

To help the accused prepare his defense, Section 207 CrPC allows for the pre-charge provision of copies of documents to the accused. Except for those that the prosecution plans to rely on in court, the clause mandates that copies of all documents obtained during the inquiry be given to the accused.

In its ruling, the Delhi High Court determined that the hard drives containing the recordings of the intercepted phone calls qualified as "papers" under Section 173(5)(a) CrPC, and that copies of these documents were to be given to the accused in accordance with Section 207(v) CrPC. The Court emphasized the significance of the accused's right to a fair trial and determined that denying the accused copies of all documents obtained by the prosecution during the course of the investigation at the pre-charge stage would constitute a violation of that fundamental right, which is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.

In recognition of the accused's right to a proper and effective opportunity to be heard even at the stage of charge, the Court further held that the trial Court or High Court can order that a copy of (or inspection of) a specific document be given to an accused, even if the prosecution claims that it is relying only on some of the documents gathered during the investigation. The importance of the accused's right to a fair trial and the prosecution's need to turn over all pertinent papers to the accused are both emphasized by this decision, which has broad repercussions for the pre-trial phase of criminal proceedings.

Material Facts Of The Case
In line with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the following are the material facts of the Dharambir v. CBI case:

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was looking into claims of corruption and other crimes committed by some public officials and private citizens in connection with the awarding of contracts for the 2010 Commonwealth Games hosted in Delhi.
   
• The CBI taped some of the accused's phone calls on hard drives while they were being investigated.
   
• The CBI provided copies of some of the records acquired during the investigation, together with a chargesheet, to the trial court.
   
• The accused submitted a request under Section 207 of the CrPC for copies of all the records amassed during the investigation, including the hard discs that contained the recordings of the intercepted phone conversations.
   
• The trial judge approved the application and instructed the CBI to give the accused copies of every document.
   
• Before the Delhi High Court, the CBI contested the trial court's ruling.
   
• According to the Delhi High Court, the hard drives that contained the recordings of the intercepted phone conversations qualified as "papers" under Section 173(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code when read in conjunction with Section 207(v) of the CrPC, and the accused were thus entitled to copies of those hard drives.
   
• The Delhi High Court further ruled that the prosecution may not select merely a subset of the "relevant" papers that were acquired throughout the investigation. Instead, copies of each document obtained throughout the investigation were to be provided by the prosecution.
   
• The Delhi High Court further ruled that the trial court had the authority to order the CBI to provide copies of any documents or permit inspection of any documents, even if the prosecution had not explicitly stated that it was relying on those documents, because the accused had a right to a proper and effective opportunity to be heard, even at the stage of charge.
   
• Eventually, the Delhi High Court ruled that it would be a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution to deny copies of all papers obtained by the prosecution during the inquiry to the accused at the pre-charge stage.

Issues Framed By The Court
In the case of Dharambir v. CBI, the court outlined a number of concerns against giving the accused copies of documents during the preliminary phase of a criminal investigation. The following are some of the main issues the court outlined:

1. Whether, in accordance with Section 207(v) of the Criminal Process Code, the prosecution may select which records acquired during the investigation are "relevant" and then decide to "rely on" and only deliver copies of those records to the accused (CrPC)?
    
2. Whether the prosecution claims it is only relying on a select few of the documents gathered during the investigation, or whether the trial court or the High Court can order that a copy of (or inspection of) a specific document be given to an accused in recognition of the accused's right to a proper and effective opportunity to be heard even at the stage of charge?
    
3. Whether the denial of copies of all documents acquired by the prosecution throughout the investigation to the accused at the pre-charge stage constitutes a breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
    
4. Whether the hard drives that the intercepted phone conversations were stored on qualify as "documents" under Section 173(5)(a) read in conjunction with Section 207(v) CrPC and, as a result, whether they need to be given to the accused before filing charges?

Arguments From Petitioner (Dharambir)
Arguments from the side of petitioner

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the investigating organization that had submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner, was the respondent in the case of Dharambir v. CBI. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to copies of every document obtained throughout the investigation, not simply the ones the prosecution intended to rely on. The respondent disputed this claim.
• The respondent contended that the requirement that the papers be "relied upon" by the prosecution applied to the right to get copies of documents under Section 207 of the CrPC. The respondent maintained that the petitioner was not entitled to copies of the documents because he had not shown how the materials not used by the prosecution were important to his defense.
• The respondent further argued that the petitioner's request for copies of all papers was not only unrealistic but would also result in an overwhelming workload for the prosecution, making it difficult for them to conduct a fair and quick trial.
• The defendant also cited earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, which determined that an accused person had no right to copies of witness statements taken during an inquiry unless the prosecution intended to rely on them.
• Hence, the respondent maintained that the accused was only entitled to copies of those papers that the prosecution determined to be important and should be relied upon.

 

1. Dharambir, the petitioner in the case, argued that the prosecution could not pick and choose which records to give the accused at the pre-charge stage and that the accused has a fundamental right to a fair trial, which includes access to all records gathered by the prosecution during the investigation. The petitioner said that it is against Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to a fair trial, to refuse copies of any papers to the accused.
    
2. The petitioner further argued that the hard drives containing the recordings of the intercepted phone calls should be regarded as "papers" under Section 173(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code when read with Section 207(v) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the accused is entitled to copies of those papers. The petitioner contended that the hard drives are real and material things that contain information pertinent to the issue, and so should be regarded "documents" under the statute.
    
3. The petitioner further argued that even if the prosecution claims that it is only relying on a select number of the documents acquired during the inquiry, the trial court or the High Court should have the authority to require that a copy or inspection of a document be supplied to the accused. By doing so, it would be made sure that the accused is given a proper and useful opportunity to be heard, even at the charge stage.

Arguments From Respondents (CBI)

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the investigating organization that had submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner, was the respondent in the case of Dharambir v. CBI. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to copies of every document obtained throughout the investigation, not simply the ones the prosecution intended to rely on. The respondent disputed this claim.
   
• The respondent contended that the requirement that the papers be "relied upon" by the prosecution applied to the right to get copies of documents under Section 207 of the CrPC. The respondent maintained that the petitioner was not entitled to copies of the documents because he had not shown how the materials not used by the prosecution were important to his defense.
   
• The respondent further argued that the petitioner's request for copies of all papers was not only unrealistic but would also result in an overwhelming workload for the prosecution, making it difficult for them to conduct a fair and quick trial.
   
• The defendant also cited earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, which determined that an accused person had no right to copies of witness statements taken during an inquiry unless the prosecution intended to rely on them.
   
• Hence, the respondent maintained that the accused was only entitled to copies of those papers that the prosecution determined to be important and should be relied upon.

Concrete Judgement And Ratio Decidendi
Concrete Jusgement (Judgement In Personam)
The Delhi High Court granted the petition and ruled that, in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, the accused had a fundamental right to a fair trial. It also ruled that the prosecution had to give the accused copies of all the documents it had gathered during the course of the investigation prior to charging the defendant. The Court noted that in order for the accused to successfully defend themselves, they had a right to see every document acquired by the prosecution, and that the prosecution could not pick and choose which documents to release.

The Court noted that the prosecution was compelled under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to give copies of every document obtained during the investigation to the accused, and that this requirement was consistent with the idea of natural justice. The Court additionally ruled that access to all pertinent documents is a need for a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and is necessary for a person to mount a successful defense.

The Court further noted that the prosecution was required to give the accused access to all pertinent documents, regardless of whether the prosecution had cited them in the charge sheet or not. According to the Court, the accused could not be denied the chance to adequately defend themselves by concealing pertinent documents.

The Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, [[1]], which stated that the accused had a right to access all papers the prosecution planned to employ as evidence during the trial, was cited by the court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others. [[2]], where it was decided that the accused had a right to access all pertinent papers during the pretrial phase, was also cited by the Court.

Determining that the accused had a fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, which included the right to see all pertinent documents acquired by the prosecution throughout the inquiry, was the specific finding in Dharambir v. CBI. At the pre-charge stage, the prosecution was obligated to give copies of all such documents to the accused, and it was not allowed to pick and choose which materials to give. This ruling ensured that the accused were given a fair chance to present a strong defense and preserved the fundamentals of natural justice.

Ratio Cedidendi (Judgement In Rem)
According to the ruling in Dharambir v. CBI, the prosecution cannot refuse the accused copies of any documents and rely solely on a small number of documents gathered during the inquiry because doing so would be against Article 21 of the Constitution's guarantee of a fair trial. The court also ruled that the defendant had a right to view and examine all records of the inquiry, even those on which the prosecution did not rely.

Many instances, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [[3]] (1992) and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy,[[4]] have established this principle (1977). In Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for the accused to have a fair trial, they have a right to examine and inspect all papers maintained by the prosecution, even those on which they have not relied. Similar to Muniswamy, the court decided that access to all prosecution-possessed papers is a right of the accused because it is essential to a fair trial.

Statutes like Section 207 of the CrPC, which stipulates that the accused has a right to see all papers obtained during the investigation, have also codified the idea of access to all materials. In Dharambir v. CBI, the court stressed the significance of this clause and declared that, in order to provide a fair trial, the prosecution must rigorously abide by it.

The importance of the right to a fair trial and the accused's right to examine and review all documents obtained during the inquiry are both emphasized in the ratio decidendi of Dharambir v. CBI. It establishes a crucial precedent for instances in the future where the prosecution must give the accused copies of evidence.

The following cases and citations were mentioned in the ruling:

• Praful B. Desai v. State of Maharashtra, [[5]]:
  In this case, it was decided that the accused had a right to receive a copy of the FIR and any witness statements that were recorded in accordance with Section 161 of the CrPC.
   
• In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, [[6]]:
  It was determined that an accused person has no absolute right to obtain copies of the statements made during an investigation.
   
• State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid, [[7]]:
  This case established that in order to guarantee a fair trial, the prosecution must reveal to the accused all materials and papers in their possession.

In Dharambir v. CBI, the court cited these decisions in determining the parameters of the accused's right to see evidence that was obtained throughout the course of the investigation. The court decided that the accused does not have an absolute right to copies of all papers at the pre-charge stage, although appreciating the value of a fair trial. Instead, the court must strike a balance between the accused's rights, the interests of justice, and the need to protect particular documents' secrecy.

Analysis Of The Case
In Dharambir v. CBI, 148 (2008) DLT 289, the court rules on the question of whether the prosecution must turn over copies of all papers obtained during the inquiry or if it can pick and select the pertinent documents and rely only on them. The court found that the accused has a fundamental right to a fair trial, and the denial of copies of all documents gathered by the prosecution during the investigation at the pre-charge stage is a breach of this right.

According to the court's interpretation of Section 207(v) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the prosecution is required to give the accused copies of all documents obtained during the investigation. The provision is mandatory, the court ruled, and the prosecution cannot pick and choose which papers are relevant.

State of Maharashtra v. Navin J. Bhaiya [[8]] and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan & Pappu Yadav & Anr. [[9]] were two cases that the court cited in support of its ruling. The court had ruled in these cases that the accused had a right to know the whole facts of the case against him and could not be denied access to any pertinent records.

The court further determined that the refusal of papers could not be justified on the grounds of safeguarding private data. The prosecution could ask for a protective order to limit the release of private information, but it could not completely block access to pertinent papers, according to the court.

Ultimately, the Dharambir v. CBI decision reiterated the value of the accused's right to a fair trial and the requirement of Section 207(v) of the CrPC. The court's ruling was supported by earlier case law and based on how statutes should be interpreted.

Conclusion
The Dharambir v. CBI case, in conclusion, is a significant ruling that clarifies the fundamental right of an accused to a fair trial. According to the ruling, an accused person has the right to access copies of all the evidence the prosecution gathered during the course of the investigation—even before charges have been filed—to guarantee that they have a fair chance to be heard. The prosecution cannot be permitted to use only some of the evidence acquired throughout the inquiry while suppressing other evidence, the court underscored.

The Indian Constitution and numerous criminal procedure rules serve as the foundation for the ruling. The court cited articles of the Criminal Process Law, which outlines the process to be followed in the investigation, trial, and appeals, as well as Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court's interpretation of the law to safeguard the rights of the accused is a prime example of judicial activism.

The case's critical examination demonstrates that the judgment's justifications and findings were sound and comprehensible since they were backed up by a large body of cases, laws, and literature. The court's reliance on instances like Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, among others, shows the court's thoroughness in reviewing precedents before coming to a decision. The ruling is further supported by the court's examination of other laws, including the Criminal Process Code and the Indian

Evidence Act. Ultimately, the Dharambir v. CBI case is a landmark ruling that has had a considerable impact on the evolution of Indian criminal law. The decision underscores the critical significance of the accused's right to a fair trial and the prosecution's duty to turn over to the accused any materials gathered throughout the course of the inquiry. Natural justice is the cornerstone of any democratic society, and it ensures that the criminal justice system functions in a fair and just manner.

End-Notes:

• (1962) 1 SCR 971
• (2004) 4 SCC 158
• 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
• (1977) 2 SCC 699
• 2003, 4 SCC 601
• (2005) 2 SCC 42
• (2002) 7 SCC 334
• (2009) 6 SCC 768
• (2005) 3 SCC 15