2025 Live Law (SC) 627

Facts:

• Sameer Sandhir (Accused No. 7) was charged by the CBI in connection with offences under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and Sections 7, 8, 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

• In May 2013, the CBI intercepted and seized two sealed Sony CD‑Rs D‑3 (dated May 4, containing 189 recorded calls) and D‑4 (dated May 10, containing 101 calls) along with their corresponding Section 65B certificates.

• These CDs were analysed by the CFSL in May and October 2013, with the CFSL report dated October 25, 2013.

• Although a supplementary chargesheet filed on October 30, 2013 included the CFSL report and mentioned the CDs, the sealed originals were not submitted then only unsealed copies were handed over to the accused.

• During trial in September 2014, when the CBI attempted to produce the sealed CDs, the accused objected, arguing late disclosure and potential prejudice, as the CDs were not part of the judicial record.

• The trial court reviewed the seizure memos, Certificates under Section 65B, and the lack of material difference between sealed and unsealed versions, and held that the CD originals could be filed during trial especially since the chargesheet had referred to them and no inordinate delay had occurred.

Issues

• Whether the prosecution can introduce sealed electronic evidence (the CDs) during trial, even though these were not physically filed with the original or supplementary chargesheet despite being referred to in them?

• If failing to file the CDs with the chargesheet was an inadvertent oversight, does that omission alone bar their introduction, especially when the defence already had access to unsealed copies and no material prejudice occurred?

• Whether the sealed CDs remain authentic and reliable, supported by uninterrupted custody, seizure memos, and their accompanying Section 65B certificates, despite delayed formal submission?

Analysis:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation centres on balancing procedural compliance with fairness and judicial discretion. The CBI had inadvertently omitted the sealed CDs (D‑3 and D‑4) containing intercepted phone calls seized in May 2013 from both the original and supplementary chargesheets, though unsealed copies and a CFSL report referencing them were provided to the accused.

The prosecution argued the omission was inadvertent, not evidence of fresh investigation, and the CDs were vital, authenticated via Section 65B certificates and continuous custody. Citing precedent in CBI v. R.S. Pai and Narender Kumar Amin, the Court held that the term “shall” in Section 173(5) CrPC is directory. That means, even if essential evidence was overlooked, it can be included later with court permission provided no undue delay or prejudice occurs.

The trial court’s discretion to admit these CDs was deemed appropriate: the trial was in its early stages, deficiencies were flagged promptly when the CDs were played during PW‑3’s examination in September 2014, and the accused suffered no surprise or disadvantage. The Supreme Court upheld this view, underscoring that ensuring access to genuine, probative material should not be thwarted by technical omissions- especially where the defence has been given sufficient notice and no prejudice follows. The decision reinforces a pragmatic, fairness-oriented approach.

Judgement:

In Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation, a two‑judge bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih held that the prosecution’s omission to attach two sealed CDs containing intercepted phone call recordings seized in May 2013 to the original or supplementary chargesheet does not render the evidence inadmissible if the omission was bona fide and did not prejudice the defence. The Court reaffirmed that the term “shall” in Section 173(5) CrPC is directory, not mandatory, and that judicial discretion may be exercised to admit such evidence during trial, especially when chargesheets expressly refer to it and no undue delay or surprise has occurred. It emphasised the importance of preserving authentic evidence supported by uninterrupted custody and compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act and upheld the allowance by the trial and High Courts to introduce the sealed CDs as part of the trial record.

Therefore, observations made from the Judgment:

• • The Court reaffirmed precedent that the statutory requirement to include all documents with the chargesheet is directory not mandatory meaning omissions aren’t fatal if properly addressed later.
• • Courts retain the discretion to admit additional evidence post-chargesheet, especially when the trial is in its early stages, material has been referenced, and no undue delay or disadvantage to fairness is shown.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s discretion to admit the sealed CDs during trial, emphasizing that substantive truth and fairness outweigh technical non-compliance, as long as judicial oversight and the accused’s rights remain intact.

In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court also affirmed that the prosecution’s oversight in not physically including the sealed CDs in the chargesheet was a bona fide and inadvertent omission since the CDs were seized before the chargesheet, expressly referenced, and previously examined in court, their late production caused no surprise or prejudice to the accused. Emphasizing that the term “shall” in Section 173(5) CrPC is directory, the Court upheld the trial and High Court’s exercises of judicial discretion in permitting admission of the CDs during trial, while preserving the defence’s full right to challenge their authenticity, Section 65B certification, and chain of custody.

Hence, this balancing approach ensures that procedural lapses don’t obstruct the admission of probative electronic evidence, provided fairness and transparency are maintained.