New Delhi: Taking note of CBI's move to repeatedly seek permission to file documents in 2G spectrum scam case, the special court Wednesday cautioned the agency not to follow this practice "endlessly" saying the accused were not "quarry to be pursued, caught and killed".
Special CBI Judge O P Saini also reminded the prosecution that "frequent and fragmentary" filing of documents causes anxiety and uncertainty in a trial and "unnecessary delay" in the trial also results in mental, physical and financial strain on the accused.
The court's observation came while allowing CBI's plea to summon additional witnesses and to place some more documents on record.
"In this case, prosecution (CBI) has been allowed to file documents 14 times, though the defence has also not lagged behind as it has competed with the prosecution and has been allowed to file the documents running into about eight full size steel boxes.
"But prosecution should remember that Indian legal system does not cleave to be theory of hound-the-accused-at-all-cost- by-all-means-fair-or-foul. An accused is also entitled to certain rights and to a fair trial. He is not a quarry to be pursued, caught and killed. He is deemed to be innocent until proved guilty and is entitled to a fair trial," it said.
The court said that 2G spectrum allocation scam case has been under investigation since October 21, 2009 and since then the prosecution has been collecting materials.
"This is sufficient time for any investigation to complete. Early completion of investigation and speedy trial are essential features of our legal system.
"Unnecessary delay in trial causes mental, physical and financial strain on the accused as well as on the system, even if the steps taken by the parties may be broadly characterized to be within the four corners of law but still it is a thing to be avoided. I hope the prosecution would take note of it and stop at this," the judge said.
The court, in its order, said that as a matter of course, entire documents with the list of witnesses should be filed with the charge sheet.
"But an occasion may arise where this may not be possible and documents may be filed subsequently also necessitating the summoning of additional witnesses. But this cannot become a rule," it said.
The court said filing of documents has been repeatedly allowed on the plea of crime being of a grave magnitude in which officers were prone to inadvertence.
"Though the prosecution has been successful in making out a case that the documents sought to be placed on record are essential for the just decision of the case but such practice cannot go on endlessly.
"It is necessary that the accused on trial should not have the feeling that he is being subjected to a trial of uncertain nature. The quest for truth cannot become a lifelong activity and if it is so, no criminal trial would ever come to an end," the court said.
