CRM-M-11509-2026 1- !"#$%$ &'()*+*%, ' -./0 // ! " ! # $ ! #% ! &'( ))) /,1 .2' 1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh in case arising out of RC No. 2202016E0005, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking supply of certain relevant and necessary documents was dismissed. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that initially, FIR No. 69 dated 19.04.2012 was registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-11509-2026 2- on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant- Shriram Uppal, through his attorney holder. Vide order dated 16.09.2015 passed in CRM- M No.1720 of 2013 and CRM-M-1526 of 2015, this Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising officers from the CBI, the Income Tax Department, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate the subject matter of the aforesaid FIRs as well as five other FIRs registered within its territorial jurisdiction concerning transactions relating to a common property. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the respondent-CBI re-registered the FIR No. 69 dated 19.04.2012 as RC No. 2202016E0005 and also re-registered five other connected regular cases, thereby taking over the investigation of the matters which were earlier being investigated by the local police. The investigation has since been completed and the challan has been presented before the Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI, against the petitioner and certain other co-accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "PC Act"), along with the substantive offence under Section 471 IPC. 3. As revealed from the record, on 03.01.2025, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed. The petitioner who was serving as the Managing Director of Punjab State Electronics Development and Production Corporation Limited (PSEDPCL), is alleged to have conspired with the AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-11509-2026 3- other co-accused in relation to the transfer and subsequent commercial exploitation of the property/plot in dispute and is alleged to be having a benami interest in a company, namely, ICRMS Private Limited. As per the allegations, the approvals relating to the transfer of the property in dispute and the refund of the transfer fee were obtained by using false documents. The petitioner is alleged to have tried to influence the investigation conducted by the local police in FIR No. 69 of 2012 after disputes arose amongst the directors of the aforesaid company. The petitioner has been granted the concession of bail. 4. The petitioner had been supplied copies of the documents and charge-sheet. He sought supply of the complete list of relied and unrelied documents in terms of the statutory mandate, and the said list was supplied by the prosecution. Upon scrutiny thereof, the petitioner found that several documents mentioned in the seizure memos and the list of relied upon documents had either not been supplied to him or had been supplied only partially. It is submitted in this petition that several copies supplied to him are illegible, black-and-white reproductions of coloured originals, on their truncated sets with missing annexures, enclosures and continuation pages, thereby making it impossible for him to ascertain whether the complete record has been supplied to him or not. 5. It is further submitted that a substantial part of the record pertaining to the investigation originally conducted by the Chandigarh Police has also not been supplied. The documents relating to ICRMS Private AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-11509-2026 4- Limited have also not been supplied in its entirety. The copies of the handwriting expert reports, forensic reports and other expert opinions are also stated to be illegible or incomplete, thereby disabling the petitioner from effectively evaluating or challenging the forensic evidence. 6. The petitioner moved an application under the relevant provisions of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking supply of the deficient documents as well as copies of the documents included in the list of unrelied documents, which, according to him, are necessary for preparing an effective defence and ensuring a fair trial. The details of the documents, copies whereof have not been supplied to him, were mentioned in the said application and the same have been reproduced in paragraph No. 16 of the present petition. It is submitted that the documents withheld or shown in unrelied list include voluminous record, zimni orders, statements recorded during the course of investigation, DDR entries, charge-sheet and connected judicial proceedings conducted by the Chandigarh Police in FIR No. 69 of 2012, have also not been supplied to the petitioner. These documents are essential for effectively cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and ensuring a fair trial. However, the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 02.02.2026. While declining the request, the learned trial Court observed that the petitioner was not entitled to copies of the unrelied documents and further that, he may only inspect the unrelied AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-11509-2026 5- documents lying in the Malkhana of the CBI. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside, as the learned Special Court passed the same without proper application of judicial mind and without considering the relevance and necessity of the documents sought by the petitioner, thereby causing serious prejudice to him. It is submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. It is further argued that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in observing that the petitioner could seek production of the documents after framing of charges, while ignoring the fact that the said documents are required by the petitioner even at the pre-charge stage to effectively participate in the proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had demonstrated the relevance and necessity of the documents mentioned in both the relied list and the unrelied list and, therefore, deserved a direction for their production. 8. It is further argued that the learned trial Court erred in proceeding on the premise that the documents included in the list of “unrelied documents” could not be directed to be supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner had furnished a detailed tabulated list of documents demonstrating their direct relevance to his defence, but the same was not considered by the learned trial Court, thereby seriously prejudicing his right to have access to material which may assist him in ensuring a fair trial. It is, AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-11509-2026 6- therefore, argued that the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 is liable to be set aside and it is submitted that the present petition be allowed by directing the respondent-CBI to supply the relevant and necessary documents mentioned in the list of unrelied documents, besides furnishing complete and legible copies of the documents sought by the petitioner in his application. 9. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that copies of all the relied upon documents, along with a copy of the charge-sheet, has already been supplied to the petitioner. The grievance raised by the petitioner pertains only to the supply of copies of the unrelied documents. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court has already granted liberty to the petitioner to specify the particular documents which he seeks to rely upon after the framing of charges and has also directed that if such documents are found to be relevant and necessary, their production may be sought at the appropriate stage of the trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been permitted to inspect the unrelied documents lying in the Malkhana of the CBI, either personally or through his counsel, in accordance with the applicable rules. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled to copies of the unrelied documents at this stage in view of the settled position of law. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-11509-2026 7- 10. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by the parties at considerable length. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner wants to obtain copies of certain unrelied documents, details of which are given in para No.12 of the petition. In Sarla Gupta Vs. Enforcement Directorate (2025) 7 SCC 626, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that copy of list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer must also be furnished to the accused. The object is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of the documents, objects, etc. in the custody of the investigating officer which are not relied upon so that at the appropriate stage, he can apply by invoking the provisions of Section 91 of the CrPC for providing copies of the documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution. It was observed that this decision upholds the right of the accused to apply for the supply of copies of the documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution at an appropriate stage by making an application to the Court. In the instant case, the Learned Trial Court has not outrightly denied supplying of such documents to the petitioners. Rather opportunity was granted to the petitioner to inspect the unrelied documents of the prosecution during office hours of the CBI, as per rules to prepare his defence and to make out as to which document is required by him to set up his defence at an appropriate stage. He has also been granted opportunity for production of such document, if it is found to be relevant. The Learned Special Judge also observed that since it was the charge-sheet pertaining to AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-11509-2026 8- only one case bearing RC 2202016E0005 which was on the file, hence, the petitioner could not ask for providing the entire record of remaining 05 FIRs registered and partly investigated by the CBI or the proceedings of SIT etc. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in this order as an option has been given to the petitioner to inspect the record and then to satisfy relevance of the same before the Trial Court after framing of the charge and then seek production of the same which is in consonance with the law. As such, this Court finds no reason to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 12. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 3/4 ()*+*%, AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.12 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.