Delhi HC: Section 173(8) CrPC Not Applicable to Rectification of Incomplete Documents Already on Record

Post By 24law
February 21, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order allowing the prosecution to introduce an additional document, emphasizing that it did not amount to placing 'fresh evidence' under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court held that since the document was already part of the record in an incomplete form and did not introduce any new allegations or facts, it was merely a ‘rectification’ and did not necessitate a supplementary chargesheet.

Background

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing a petition filed by the accused challenging the Trial Court’s decision. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the respondent in the case, alleged that the petitioner, who was employed as a Single Window Operator at the Bank of Baroda, had manipulated cash deposit slips and altered transaction records. Based on these allegations, charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

During the trial, the CBI sought to introduce a complete screenshot from the OHDTM menu of the Finacle System, which is used for processing and recording cash deposit transactions. The CBI stated that while a screenshot had already been placed on record earlier, it was incomplete and lacked crucial details, including a transaction number linking the petitioner to the offense. The application for introducing this additional document was filed after the final arguments had been completed. Additionally, the CBI requested the recall and re-examination of four witnesses, asserting that their earlier testimonies were based on incomplete records and that the missing information was vital for the fair adjudication of the case.

Petitioner’s Objections

The petitioner opposed these applications, arguing that:

The screenshot constituted fresh evidence and could only be introduced through further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The recall of witnesses after the closure of prosecution evidence and the commencement of final arguments would be prejudicial to his right to a fair trial.

Allowing the introduction of new material at this stage would result in procedural unfairness and put him at a severe disadvantage.

Trial Court’s Decision

The Trial Court allowed the CBI’s application, reasoning that:

The screenshot was already part of the record, albeit in an incomplete form.

The completion of the document did not amount to fresh evidence.

The recall of witnesses was necessary to ensure a complete factual record for proper adjudication.

Delhi High Court’s Observations

Introduction of Additional Document/Screenshot

The High Court distinguished between ‘fresh evidence’ and ‘rectification,’ stating that:

Fresh evidence introduces new material that was not part of the original investigation and brings new facts or allegations against the accused.

Rectification involves the correction of an omission, mistake, or incomplete filing of evidence that was already collected.

Applying this distinction, the Court held: "Applying this distinction, this Court finds that the introduction of the complete screenshot does not constitute fresh evidence. The document in question was already a part of record in an incomplete form, and its completion does not introduce any new allegation, new findings, or alter the prosecution's case in any material manner." The Court further observed that the Trial Court had correctly noted that the document was already a part of the record and its omission was a procedural oversight. It clarified that the prosecution was not introducing a new piece of evidence but was merely providing complete details of an already submitted document.

Regarding the petitioner’s argument that the screenshot could not be introduced without following the procedure under Section 173(8) CrPC, the Court ruled that Section 173(8) was inapplicable in this case. It noted: "The application of Section 173(8) of the CrPC hinges on whether the prosecution's act of submitting the complete screenshot amounts to further investigation. Section 173(8) of the CrPC applies only when the police conduct further investigation after filing the final report and obtain new evidence that was not originally collected. In such cases, a supplementary chargesheet must be filed before the Magistrate to ensure procedural fairness." The Court emphasized that since no further investigation had been conducted and no additional evidence was collected beyond what was already on record, Section 173(8) CrPC did not apply.

Recall of Witnesses After Completion of Final Arguments

Addressing the petitioner’s objection to the recall of witnesses, the Court stated that he had failed to demonstrate how the additional screenshot materially changed his defense strategy or impaired his ability to contest the case on its merits. The Court observed: "The ability to test the evidence through cross-examination defeats any claim of procedural unfairness."

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that his right to a fair trial was being violated, the Court remarked: "Further, it is essential to distinguish between a genuine violation of right to a fair trial and a situation where a party merely loses the benefit of a procedural lapse. The key question is not whether the accused's tactical advantage has been diminished but whether they have been deprived of the fundamental safeguards of cross-examination, rebuttal or access to the evidence."

Since the accused was given an opportunity to cross-examine the recalled witnesses, the Court concluded that procedural fairness was being upheld. It also noted that rather than prejudicing the accused, the introduction of the complete document would contribute to a more accurate and fair adjudication of the case.

Verdict

With these observations, the Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order and dismissed the petitioner’s challenge, reaffirming that the introduction of a complete document already part of the record did not constitute fresh evidence and did not require compliance with Section 173(8) CrPC.