TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................................2

CERTIFICATE..............................................................................................................................3

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................4

DETAILS OF THE JUDGEMENT.............................................................................................5

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE JUDGEMENT....................................................................6

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE..........................................................................................7

ISSUES FRAMNED BY THE COURT.......................................................................................8

ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER (DHARAMBIR)...........................................................9

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS (CBI).......................................................................10

CONCRETE JUDGEMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI......................................................11

CONCRETE JUSGEMENT (Judgement in Personam)............................................................11

RATIO CEDIDENDI (Judgement in Rem)...............................................................................12

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE.......................................................................................................14

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................15
 DETAILS OF THE JUDGEMENT

 NAME OF THE JUDGEMENT – DHARAMBIR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION
 CITATION OF THE CASE – 148 (2008) DLT 289
 DECIDED ON – 11 March 2008
 BENCH – Single Bench
 JUDGE – Justice S. Muralidhar;
 AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT – Justice S. Muralidhar
 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:

1. 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.
2. The CBI taped some of the accused's phone calls on hard drives while they were being
investigated.
3. The CBI provided copies of some of the records acquired during the investigation,
together with a chargesheet, to the trial court.
4. 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.
5. The trial judge approved the application and instructed the CBI to give the accused copies
of every document.
6. Before the Delhi High Court, the CBI contested the trial court's ruling.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 FRAMNED 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 –

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)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

1
(1962) 1 SCR 971
2
(2004) 4 SCC 158
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

3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
4
(1977) 2 SCC 699
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.

5
2003, 4 SCC 601
6
(2005) 2 SCC 42
7
(2002) 7 SCC 334
 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.

8
(2009) 6 SCC 768
9
(2005) 3 SCC 15
 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.