[Delhi Riots] Accused can file successive pleas for supply of documents u/Section 207, CrPC: Delhi court on Devangana Kalita's plea

While considering a plea moved on behalf of Devangana Kalita to urgently hear an application under Section 207, CrPC seeking the supply of copies of electronic evidence in a Delhi riots case, a Delhi court held that it was “not correct” for the prosecution to say that an accused could not file successive applications seeking such supply. (State vs. Tahir Hussain & Others, IA No. 79-2021(Devengana Kalita)).Kalita is one of several accused in the Delhi riots cases, for which the offenses charged include those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents..In an order passed on Monday, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat observed that “It would not be correct for the prosecution to contend that successive applications under Section 207 of CrPC cannot be moved." ."After supply of the chargesheet and the documents, which run into thousands of pages, there can be occasions where at greater scrutiny, the counsel for the accused may notice certain deficiencies which can then be remedied under Section 207", the court added..The Judge, however, observed that ideally, the accused should not deliberately move such successive applications..“If still further deficiencies are noted, another application may be moved. However, it not a healthy practice to move an application asking for only set of documents while keeping the option of moving another application open and thereafter move other applications as regards to other documents,” stated the order..The court was dealing with the plea for urgently hearing the Section 207, CrPC application moved on behalf of Kalita last April. This plea was disposed of and the Section 207 application was fixed for hearing on merits on July 30. .The plea for urgently hearing the Section 207 application was opposed by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad who submitted that motive behind filing this plea was “frivolous” and meant to “stifle proceedings by creating confusion”..The SPP Prasad also pointed out that the challenge to the Delhi High Court's grant of bail to Kalita was due to be heard by the Supreme Court on July 20, in which matter the accused had chosen not to file a counter-affidavit..The court recorded the SPP's submission that “the present application is only meant to create an excuse to be stated before Supreme Court of Indian on July 20, 2021.".The SPP further highlighted that while the application under Section 207 was moved on April 8, there was no urgency shown by the accused to have it heard until July 13 (when the plea for urgent hearing was moved)..The SPP also cited a pending plea seeking the supply of video-footage in a Delhi riots case before the Delhi High Court to contend that a possible “conflict of orders” may ensue if the Delhi court were to decide on Kalita's application. In this backdrop, he alleged that Kalita had not come before judge Rawat with “clean hands”..Appearing for Kalita, advocate Adit S Pujari opposed the SPP's submissions arguing that the plea for urgent hearing had been moved after coming to know that the matter was listed before the Supreme Court on July 20. He stressed that he had a right to be heard..With respect to the matter in the Delhi High Court, Pujari submitted that the relief sought was in relation to a different FIR, registered with the police station at Jaffrabad. He also stressed that he had right to file as many applications under Section 207, CrPC for preparing his defense..The court ultimately opined that the submissions with regards to the proceedings before the Supreme Court, were “completely beyond the domain of this court”..Allowing the plea for urgent hearing, the court underlined that the police knew their case and that Section 207, CrPC was meant for the accused to ascertain the material against him or her. .“Thus the interpretation of Section 207 CrPC must be made considering the purpose for which it is enacted, in other words from accused’s stand point,” it added..Dealing with the prosecutor’s contention on “conflicting orders”, the court found the proposition to be “wholly incorrect”. .“The court deals with the application based upon particular facts of the case. In the present FIR 59/20, police station Crime Branch, Delhi (investigated by Special Cell), there is one application moved by the applicant under Section 207 CrPC and there is no other proceeding for the said purpose before Delhi High Court,” the order stated..The only proceeding before Delhi High Court, according to court, related to a revision petition against a magistrate court order in FIR 50/20. Therefore, it noted that there were two separate applications in the two separate FIRs.."Applicant can’t be precluded from filing the present application or the court can’t be stopped from deciding the present application if there is already a petition pending before Delhi High Court in relation to FIR 50/20, police station Jaffrabad, and there is no finding or ratio the High Court regarding the said video footage. On this count, contending that the applicant has come to the court without clean hands is devoid of merit,” the court held..[Read Order]