In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the rights to a fair trial were emphasized in the case related to the Delhi Excise Policy conspiracy. The court addressed concerns regarding document supply and timely proceedings to safeguard the accused’s rights, including Sh. Arun Ramchandran Pillai. Stay informed about the judicial process in cases of alleged criminal conspiracy. #FairTrial #DelhiExcisePolicy #ConspiracyCase #LegalJustice
Facts
- The FIR was registered by CBI alleging a criminal conspiracy during the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22.
- The accused intentionally created loopholes in the policy for later exploitation.
- Substantial kickbacks were paid to public servants for undue pecuniary benefits in the liquor trade.
- Alleged kickbacks of Rs. 90-100 crores were paid by individuals in the South Indian liquor business and subsequently returned through profit margins and credit notes.
- The conspiracy led to the formation of a cartel among liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.
- CBI filed a charge-sheet against 07 accused, including Sh. Arun Ramchandran Pillai, on 25.11.2022 for offences under IPC and PC Act.
- The Trial Court took cognizance of the charges on 15.12.2022.
Arguments
- The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI opposed the present petition stating that it is a delaying tactic by the petitioner.
- The investigation for all 16 charge-sheeted accused, including the petitioner, is complete. Further investigation for remaining accused/suspects is ongoing under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
- Sufficient materials such as documents, articles, and witness statements have been submitted along with the chargesheet for framing charges against the accused.
- A supplementary charge-sheet for other accused persons is scheduled to be filed before the Trial Court by 10.06.2024.
- The case involves a larger conspiracy related to the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-2022, and further investigation is being conducted by the CBI to trace the money trail.
- The Trial Court’s decision to proceed with the case and frame charges has been legally sound and after due consideration.
Analysis
- The court emphasizes the importance of providing accused persons with copies of supplementary chargesheets and documents for fair trial.
- Instructions have been given for timely supply of hard and digitized copies of chargesheets to accused persons.
- Accused persons have two days to inform the Investigating Officer of any deficiencies in the provided copies.
- Efficiency in scrutinizing documents by the accused is crucial to ensure a speedy trial and avoid unnecessary delays.
- The court requests the Trial Court to hear arguments on charges promptly after document scrutiny, with short dates given to each accused for arguments.
- Counsels can file written submissions on the same day they conclude arguments.
- Short dates should be given to ensure the trial proceeds swiftly.
- Accused persons are entitled to additional documents filed against co-accused in conspiracy cases for a fair trial and to prepare their defense.
- Framing of charges is a critical stage in criminal trials, especially in conspiracy cases where roles may be interlinked.
- The accused will have the opportunity to address new evidence brought by supplementary chargesheets.
- Further investigation may be necessary if new evidence is found during ongoing investigations.
- Prima facie material must show the accused’s agreement to engage in activities constituting the offense in conspiracy cases.
- Accused persons need to be fully aware of the case set up against them to prepare their defense effectively.
- Section 207 of the Cr.P.C protects an accused’s right to a fair trial.
- Compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. involves supplying all necessary documents collected by the prosecution to an accused.
- The purpose is to enable an accused to thoroughly understand the case against him.
- This was highlighted in the case of Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar 2024 INSC 448.
Case Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2024:DHC:4731)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-3192/2024
