Dharambir Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Published on: August 16,2021

Equivalent citation- 148 (2008) DLT 289

Case type- Civil appeal

Case no.-

Decided on- 11.03.2008

Petitioner- Dharambir

Respondent- Central Bureau of Investigation

Justice- Hon’ble Justice S Muralidhar

Statues Referred- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 91, Section 161, Section 173(5), Section 207, Section 457, Section 482; Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 3, Section 65B; Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 2(o), Section 2(t); Indian Penal Code- Section ; Prevention of Corruption Act- Section ;Constitution of India- Article 21, Article 226; Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951- Section 5(2), Rule 419A,

Cases referred- Darby and Co. Ltd. v. Weldon, Hindustan Construction Company … vs Union Of India, Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas, Khudi Prosad Bhakat vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr., Ahammed Kutty Appurath Poyil vs The Union Of India, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs C.B.I, Superintendent & Remembrancer Of … vs Satyen Bhowmick And Ors, State Of U.P vs Laxmi Brahman & Anr, Pravin @ Popat Laxmichand vs State Of Gujarat, Smt. Shakuntala vs State Of Haryana, Lt. Col., S.J. Chaudhary vs State (Delhi Administration), State Of Kerala vs Maya Raghavan, Shiv Narayan Kachawa vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors., Ram Jethmalani vs The Director, Cbi, Spe, Cia-I, New … , Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection, State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh, Supdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal … vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors, Soma Chakravarty vs State Through Cbi, State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi and State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru.

Facts

• In four separate cases, the petitioners are accused of violating Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 to 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’). The prosecution stated in the charge sheets filed in the four cases that intercepted telephonic conversations between the accused persons were recorded on four hard discs (HDs) in the computer systems kept at the Special Unit (SU) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in New Delhi as part of the investigation.
• According to the charge sheets, these conversations took place between December 2002 and March 2003 on fifteen mobile phones and land lines (hereinafter referred to as ‘tapped phones’) belonging to one of the accused, which were placed under electronic surveillance pursuant to statutory permissions obtained from the competent authority from time to time. The CBI transferred to separate Compact Discs (CDs) the intercepted communications that CBI judged to be important for each of the four cases after listening to and evaluating the intercepted conversations recorded on the HDs.
• The HDs and CDs were subsequently transferred to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Sciences Laboratory (APFSL) for certification for two purposes. First, that the HDs were in good functioning order, as required by Section 65B(2)(c) EA, and that the talks transferred to the CDs were true copies of the HDs’ original recordings. The APFSL-certified CDs, along with the charge papers, were then forwarded to the learned Special Judge in New Delhi. At the APFSL in Hyderabad, the four HDs have been kept.
• The Special Judge issued process to the accused after taking note of the offenses. Each of the accused was given a copy of the charge sheet and its annexures, as well as a transcript of the intercepted phone conversations pertinent to the case. The accused was also given CDs with the claimed relevant telephone conversations afterwards.
• During the charge hearings, some of the defendants in the four cases filed applications with the Special Judge, requesting that the CBI provide mirror-image copies of the HDs to each of them. By separate orders, the Special Judge rejected this. Angry, the defendants have filed the current petitions, one under Article 226 of the Constitution and the others under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• The first FIR, with the number No. On the 3rd of April 2003, RC 0025(A)/2003-DLI was registered under Sections 7, 13(2), and 13(1)(d) PC Act. This is about the unlicensed construction of an elevator at the Mahavira Towers, IIIrd Floor, Paschim Vihar property. The former Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Shri Subhash Sharma (‘Sharma’), is accused No. 1, and Shri Dharambir Khattar (‘Khattar’), who reportedly functioned as a middleman between public workers and private individuals, is accused No. 2, and Shri Ved Prakash Kaushik, an individual and coconspirator who assisted in liaising with the DDA, is accused No. 3. Accused No. 4 is Kavita Kapoor, a partner in the firm M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers, while accused Nos. 5 and 6 are Shri Anil Wadhwa and Shri Yashpal Manocha, the other two partners in the firm. On July 15, 2004, the charge sheet in the Lift Case was filed.
• The second case is RC-1(A)/2003-ACU-1, which was filed on March 26, 2003, for violations of Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The Modern Public School Education Society, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (‘Society’) is the subject of this letter. The chargesheet in this matter [hereinafter referred to as “the School case”) was submitted on July 30, 2004. It states that the DDA granted the Society 3.977 acres of property on July 11, 1985 for the building of a higher secondary school and playground. Despite receiving clearance for the project proposal on August 2, 1991, the Society did not complete the school building within the two-year deadline. The DDA issued a show cause notice to it on November 18, 2002, requesting that the lease be cancelled. The prosecution alleges that Accused No. 1 Sharma, Shri Jagdish Chandra Accused No. 2, the then Director (Lands) DDA, Accused No. 4 Shri Ashok Kapoor, Sharma’s then Private Secretary, and Accused No. 5, Shri Amrit Lal Kapoor, the Society’s Director, conspired with Accused No. 3 Khattar to ensure that the lease was not cancelled and that the composition fee was not imposed, resulting to a loss of Rs. 62,06,594 to the government.
• The third case is RC.2(A)/2003-ACUIII, which was filed on March 26, 2003, under Sections 120B IPC, Sections 7, 8, and 13(2), 13(1)(d) PC Act. Sharma, the former Vice-Chairman of the DDA, Shri Anand Mohan Sharan (‘Sharan’), the former Commissioner (Land Disposal) DDA is accused No. 2, Shri Vijay Risbud, Commissioner (Planning) DDA is accused No. 3 , Shri Jagdish Chandra, Director (Lands) DDA is accused No. 4, Accused No. 5 is Khattar, and Accused No. 6 Co-conspirators have been identified as Shri Ravinder Taneja, Shri G.R. Gogia, and Shri Mukesh Saini, who are accused Nos. 7, 8, and 9 respectively. On March 31, 2005, the charge sheet in this case (hereafter referred to as the ‘DLF case’) was submitted. The prosecution claims that the defendants engaged in a criminal conspiracy with private parties in order to provide undue profit to DLF by authorizing a Floor Area Ratio of 300 instead of 139 and charging rates well below market rates in exchange for illegal gratification from DLF. The agreed bribe amount was Rs. 1.1 crores, of which Sharma, then Vice Chairman of the DDA, would receive Rs. 50 lakhs and the rest would be split among Sharan, Chandra, and Khattar. DLF was supposed to gratify Risbud independently. Taneja and Gogia are said to have been involved in the delivery of the bribe.
• The fourth case is RC.3(A)/2003-ACU.X, in which a FIR was filed on April 29, 2003, under Sections 120B, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(2), and 13(1)(d) PC Act. Shri Shameet Mukherjee (‘Mukherjee’), a former Judge of Delhi High Court, Accused No. 2 is Sharma, the former Vice-Chairman DDA, Accused No. 3 is Shri Vinod Khatri (‘Khatri’), and Accused No. 4 is Shri Ashok Kapoor (‘Kapoor’), Sharma’s former Private Secretary. The charge sheet in this case (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Shameet Mukherjee Case’) was filed on April 5, 2005. According to the prosecution, Khattar had a strong friendship with Sharma and Mukherjee. Mukherjee used to visit Khattar’s offices at 431, Mathura Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi and 2 K. Mukherjee used to visit Khattar’s offices at 431, Mathura Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi and 2 K. Mukherjee used to visit Khattar’s offices at 431, Mathura Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi G. Road and experience Khattar’s hospitality on a regular basis. According to reports, Khattar functioned as a go-between for Mukherjee and a number of private parties who wanted their pending cases resolved favorably. The claim is that the official files and records of cases in Mukherjee’s Court were transported to Khattar’s premises on Mathura Road, where Mukherjee worked in a room. On the 26th of March, 2003, the CBI recovered files of cases pending in the Court of Mukherjee while they were being carried out of Khattar’s aforementioned premises by Ashok Kapoor in his Maruti Van. This featured a six-page draft of the Court’s unsigned order in the case Azad Singh v. DDA. The conspiracy was allegedly formed between the aforementioned defendants in order to provide excessive profit to Khatri. He was concerned about the status of the interim order issued in Azad Singh v. DDA, which effectively stopped the Aruna Asaf Ali Road from being widened. If the stay is withdrawn, Khatri will suffer a significant financial loss since he will lose control of two plots contiguous to the one claimed by Azad Singh. The road widening would also harm the business interests of the Sahara Restaurant, which was roughly 1900 feet away from the Azad Singh land. The charge sheet explains how the accused conspired to have an interim order issued to preserve Khatri’s interests.
• The prosecution seeks to rely on intercepted conversations involving the accused made on 15 mobile and landline telephones belonging to Khattar, his family members, and other accused that were placed under electronic snooping. Apart from witness statements and certain documents, the prosecution seeks to rely on intercepted conversations involving the accused made on 15 mobile and landline telephones belonging to Khattar, his family members, and other accused that were placed under electronic snooping.
• The CBI prepared call information records of identified calls of discussions between accused persons pertinent to each of these cases after listening to the different conversations between the accused. The relevant calls between the accused parties in the Shameet Mukherjee case were copied on to 19 CDs and taken on record for inquiry, according to the charge sheet. The chats on these 19 CDs spanned 768 phone calls. 100 short-listed telephone calls pertinent to the Shameet Mukherjee case were created and transferred to four CDs from these 19 CDs.
• According to the chargesheets filed in the other three cases, the CBI’s position on the relevant calls is as follows:

1. The Lift Case: 25 phone calls recorded on three CDs.
2. In the case of the school, 14 calls were copied on two CDs.
3. In the case of the DLF, 62 calls were copied on three CDs.

• The four hard discs and CDs containing the relevant conversations were sent to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (‘APFSL’) for comparison with the originals and certification that the conversations recorded on the CDs were true copies of the original recordings on the hard discs, as well as that the HDs were in good working order. The APFSL was asked to confirm that the time, date, and duration of the calls recorded on the CDs corresponded to the data files on the four hard discs. In a report dated July 22, 2003, the APFSL delivered the results of the test to the CBI, confirming that the recorded conversations were true copies of the originals and that the HDs were in good working order.

Fact in issue

• Are the hard drives on which the intercepted phone conversations were recorded ‘papers’ under Section 173(5)(a) CrPC read with Section 207(v) CrPC?
• Can the prosecution choose which documents gathered during the investigation are ‘relevant,’ and thus choose to ‘rely on,’ and only provide copies of those documents to the accused under Section 207(v) CrPC, or is the prosecution required to provide copies of all documents gathered during the investigation?
• Can the trial Court or this Court order that a copy of (or inspection of) a certain document be given to an accused even if the prosecution states that it is relying on only some of the documents gathered during investigation in recognition of the accused’s right to a proper and effective opportunity to be heard even at the stage of charge’
• Is the denial of copies of all documents acquired by the prosecution throughout the investigation to the accused at the pre-charge stage a breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
• Is it sufficient for the prosecution in this case to provide copies of the CDs containing the relevant talks, or must it offer the accused copies of, or at the very least an inspection of, the originals of those discussions as recorded in the HDs? In other words, if the answer to question I is affirmative and relevant to the cases at hand, to what degree and in what form can the accused demand copies of or inspection of the HDs? Issue I Are the documents on the Hard Disks documents?

Petitioner contention

• The CBI has described the procedure of determining the list of calls that are “related” to each of the cases in each of the charge sheets. This procedure demonstrates that phone conversations on the tapped phones were recorded onto a hard disc, and the so-called pertinent calls were plucked from the hard disc and copied onto CDs, which were then handed over to the accused. Because the charge sheet mentions the hard discs, the discussions captured on those discs were unquestionably “documents” under Section 3 EA read with Sections 173(5)(a) and 207(v) CrPC. The accused had to be given all of the documents that had been relied on.
• According to Section 65(B)(1) EA, copies of an electronic record transferred to another medium are regarded to be documents admissible in evidence if the conditions in Section 65(2) EA are met. As a result, the HDs would become relied-upon documents, necessitating the provision of copies of the HDs to the accused.
• The CDs provided to each of the accused are merely partial information, and the prosecution is required to provide each of them with the whole data obtained during the course of the investigation at the pre-charge stage. When it comes to electronic records, the CBI Manual specifies the method to be followed by the CBI when investigating the case. Because the removal of a hard disc from a Computer Processing Unit (‘CPU’) can modify the structure of the content of the hard disc, a clone of the hard disc is expected to be generated and submitted for analysis. Unless each of the accused was given a mirror image duplicate of the hard disc, it would be impossible to determine whether any of the so-called relevant calls had been altered in any way, such as by writing over, removing and reinstalling, and so on. It is argued that this is absolutely necessary since the APFSL test report, when compared to the information provided by the telephone companies, reveals a discrepancy in call duration and time, which cannot be verified until a copy of the hard disc is obtained.
• The amount of intercepted phone conversations between the accused that were recorded in the HDs was admittedly in excess of 50,000. The CBI has chosen specific telephone calls that it considers to be “important” totally at its discretion. It is hoped to show that all of the discussions between the same two people on a specific date were not picked up as being relevant based on the printout of the contents of the phone calls provided by the service provider. Even when 4 or 5 calls were made in a row, alternating calls were picked up and the rest were ignored. Unless the whole set of calls recorded on the hard disc is handed to the accused, they will be unable to show that any material contained in the left out calls is beneficial to the accused or exonerates him.
• Under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution, each of the accused has a basic right to a fair trial, which has been enshrined in the CrPC’s different sections. It would be a violation of that right to deny any material obtained during the prosecution’s investigation and referred to or produced with a charge sheet.
• It is argued that the prosecution’s determination of what is ‘relevant’ for the purposes of Section 173(5)(a) CrPC cannot be left to the prosecution alone. In any case, if the Court believes that the document or a portion of the document referred to by the prosecution should be provided to the accused, it can order that the prosecution provide such a copy to guarantee that the accused is not deprived a fair right of defense during the trial.
• It makes no difference if the prosecution claims that the hard drives were either not used or were solely used to comply with Section 65(B) of the EA. By conveniently failing to produce the hard discs before the Court at this stage, which the prosecution was required to do under Section 165 CrPC, and by conveniently stating that they were not relying on the hard discs, the prosecution has denied the accused access to material that is critical to a proper defense.
• It is argued that the learned Special Judge erred in concluding that the CDs provided to the accused had to be viewed as though they were original papers. This was contradicted by the CBI’s explanation in the charge sheet that these CDs were copied from the hard drive. Even if the APFSL verified the copies, the authenticity was rebuttable, and the accused could not be expected to refute it without access to the original recordings of the discussions contained on the hard discs.
• It is argued that simply playing all of the relevant calls relied on by the CBI from the hard disc would be insufficient because the accused would still be unable to view the other discussions involving them on the hard disc.
• Illegally obtained evidence, such as telephone conversations intercepted without complying with the Indian Telegraph Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder, should not be allowed to be used by the prosecution.
• Finally, it was argued that even if the prosecution withholds a document from the accused at the pre-charge stage because it does not intend to rely on it, the trial court or even this Court, in exercising its inherent powers, can order the prosecution to provide a copy to the accused in recognition of the accused’s right to a proper and effective op.

Respondent contention

• The terms “device” and “electronic record” are not interchangeable. Because the had is merely an electronic device for storing data and not a document, it appears in the list of articles rather than the list of documents that accompany the chargesheet.
• In this case, the CBI followed the provisions of Section 65(B) EA to the letter and spirit. As a result, after the prerequisites in Section 65B(2) have been met, the CDs containing the relevant telephone conversations, which have been duly certified by the APFSL, will be considered a document under Section 65B(1) EA. It is admissible evidence without the need to show that the original computer output was produced.
• It is not permissible for the accused to request the production of the original computer output or hard disk during the trial, and it is even less permissible at the pre-charge stage of providing copies of documents.
• The reference to hard discs in the chargesheet was only made to illustrate the process of making copies of the relevant calls, and it was only included in the list of documents to demonstrate the court during the trial that the conditions set forth in Section 65B(1) EA were met.
• As a result, the prosecution is not required to provide the mirror image of the HDs as requested by the accused under Section 207(v) CrPC read with Section 173(5)(a) thereof. In any case, a mirror image of the hard disc that includes calls from other instances is not only prohibited under Section 207(v) CrPC, but it would also jeopardize the right to privacy of people who aren’t involved in the cases.
• The accused would have the right to cross-examine the APFSL witnesses about the disparities regarding the relevant calls, including call duration and time, and would thus not be prejudiced if the hard disc was not produced at this stage.
• In the middle of the huge number of documents obtained throughout the investigation, the prosecution can legitimately select what is important to the case and chose to rely on only those papers to prove its case. In reality, the prosecution may not be able to rely on any other papers to prove the charge. The phone calls aren’t the only piece of evidence used by the prosecution. Only what the prosecution claims it depends on when formulating charges will be considered by the court. This Court has no authority to decide what evidence the prosecution should use.
• Even if the prosecution wishes to introduce any other document that it intends to rely on at a later stage, it must do so in accordance with the procedure set out in the CrPC. At that point, the accused will have a complete understanding of the evidence that will be utilized against them and will be able to request access to those documents.
• The stage for explaining the inconsistencies between the call information provided by the telephone providers and that approved by the APFSL, according to the DPP v. Mckewon [1997] All.E.R. 737 and State v. Navjot Sandhu, is at trial, not at the pre-charge stage. The legality and illegality of the evidence acquired can only be reviewed during the trial, and the stage of charge framing is insufficient for that purpose.
• The extent of the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC does not include an examination of the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence at the pre-charge stage.

Ratio decendi

• A hard disc will remain a mere electronic storage device like any other computer hardware as long as nothing is written on it and it is not changed. However, once a hard disc has been changed, even if it is restored to its original position by reversing the change, the information about the two steps, namely the change and its reversal, is stored in the hard disc’s subcutaneous memory and can be retrieved using software designed for that purpose. As a result, even if it does not contain any accessible information at the time, a hard disc that has been written on or exposed to any alteration is itself an electronic record. Furthermore, there may be active information on the hard drive that is accessible, convertible into other types of data, and transferrable to other electronic devices. An electronic record would be created from the active information.
• Given the broad definitions of the terms “document” and “evidence” in the amended Section 3 of the EA, read in conjunction with Sections 2(o) and (t) of the IT Act, a Hard Disc that has been subject to any form of change at any point is an electronic record would be a document under Section 3 EA.
• The second finding is that the hard discs in the immediate cases are documents since they have undergone changes as a result of their use for recording telephonic conversations, and then again as a result of certain of those files being copied onto CDs. For both their latent and patent qualities, they are electronic recordings.
• In the instant cases, not only would the CDs containing the relevant intercepted telephone conversations as copied from the HDs be considered electronic records and thus documents for the purposes of Section 207(v) read with Section 173(5)(a) CrPC, but the HDs themselves would be electronic records and thus documents.
• The prosecution is required to provide copies of only those documents to the accused that it intends to rely on as mentioned in the charge sheet or those that have already been provided to the court throughout the investigation under Sections 207(v) and 173(5)(a) CrPC.
• At the pre-charge stage, the trial court or this Court cannot order the prosecution to provide copies of documents other than those on which it intends to rely or that have already been provided to the court throughout the inquiry.
• The trial court cannot order that a copy of every document acquired by the prosecution be provided to the accused at the pre-charge stage, regardless of what the prosecution intends to rely on.
• The prosecution is required to list the documents it intends to use to persuade the court to draft a charge against the accused in the charge sheet it submits to the court. If it fails to do so, the court will proceed on the assumption that the prosecution intends to rely on whatever material is provided with the charge sheet.
• When an accused insists that a document other than what is listed in the list of documents attached to a charge sheet should be taken as being proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution, and claims that this is evident from a reading of the charge sheet, the trial court will examine the claim and, if satisfied that the charge sheet does in fact indicate that some other document should be taken as being proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution, the charge sheet will be dismissed.
• The purpose of the APFSL’s investigation in this case was to see if the hard discs were working properly and if the calls copied to the CDs were true copies when compared to the corresponding files of original recordings of those calls on the four HDs. Only to this extent can it be argued that the prosecution is relying on the HDs.
• The statutory necessity under Section 207(v) of affording the accused access to the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversation as a relied upon document is not waived by the certification under Section 65B(4) EA Act.
• Only those portions of the hard disc that relate to the files containing the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversations would be ‘documents’ proposed to be relied on by the prosecution in accordance with Section 207(v) read with Section 173(5)(a) CrPC in the present cases. Those files would be documents both in terms of the file containing the actual conversation that was recorded as well as a record of any subsequent changes made to that file.
• As a result, the accused would only have a right of inspection of the hard discs to the extent described in (xii) above, because producing mirror image copies of the whole HDs is not required in the circumstances described in this judgment.
• In the instance of Shameet Mukherjee, the court must proceed on the assumption that the CBI intends to rely on the 19 CDs containing 768 calls in addition to the papers included in the annexure to the charge sheet, as stated in para 21 of the charge sheet in that case. As a result, each of the Shameet Mukherjee defendants is entitled to get copies of the 19 CDs comprising the 768 calls.
• The failure of the prosecution to provide all documents gathered during investigation to the accused at the pre-charge stage will not be a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution as long as the statutory requirements of Sections 207(v) read with 173(5)(a) CrPC are strictly followed, and there is no challenge to their constitutional validity.
• The accused or their authorized representatives, the counsel for the parties, the counsel for the CBI, and the learned Special Judge will be able to conduct the inspection described in Subparagraph (xiii) above by playing directly from the HDs the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephonic conversations in the presence of the accused or their authorized representatives, the counsel for the parties, the counsel for the CBI, and the learned Special Judge on two or three consecutive days, so that the said exercise is completed on or before March 25, 2008.

Judgement

The petition was disposed with a few directions:

• Within one week of today, the CBI will send copies of the 19 CDs indicated in para 21 of the charge sheet comprising the 768 calls to each of the accused in the Shameet Mukherjee case, and in any case not later than March 18, 2008.
• The four hard discs delivered by the CBI after sealing and to the APFSL for certification will be returned as soon as possible, but no later than March 17, 2008. The APFSL in Hyderabad will keep the cloned copies of the four hard discs that have been certified as such by the APFSL.
• The four HDs will be kept in an aseptic atmosphere in a temperature-controlled room in either the CBI’s Cyber Crime Section or any other suitable location with prior notice to the learned Special Judge. The CBI should identify this location as soon as possible, in consultation with the learned Special Judge, so that the four HDs are immediately collected and maintained there when they are returned.
• It is made clear that the abovementioned four HDs will henceforth be under the control of the learned Special Judge and would be subject to his orders. Nothing will be done in connection to those four HDs unless the Special Judge gives his approval.
• The learned Special Judge will set three dates between March 18 and March 25, 2008 for the playing of the original recorded conversations of the relevant intercepted telephone calls relied on by the CBI in each of the four cases directly from the HDs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, counsel for the parties, and in the presence of and subject to the direction of the Director of the CBI. The location will be the same as where the four hard discs would be housed once they are returned to New Delhi. The entire exercise should be completed on or before March 25, 2008, because the duration of these calls is not projected to be extremely long.
• It is not necessary to play the 19 CDs containing 768 calls at the stage from the hard disc. Other than the 100 stated calls on which the CBI is relying, there will be no need to give the accused access to the complete 768 calls recorded on the hard disc. If the accused in the Shameet Mukherjee case wishes to refer to any of the 768 calls during their arguments on charge before the learned Special Judge, they can do so directly from the CD.
• After that, the arguments on charge must be positively finished in all four instances by the 30th of April, 2008, and orders on charge must be issued by the 31st of May, 2008. This entire effort will be carried out with the cooperation of each of the learned Counsel.

Conclusion

The court in this case well elaborated that the computer’s hard drive, which contains the original voice recordings, is a document within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act.