Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has held that the complete screenshot does not constitute fresh evidence, it's merely a rectification of an inadvertent omission and no new allegations or material changes to prosecution's case and hence, does not require compliance with Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 

• The Delhi High Court has held that in the case of Sonu v. CBI (2025). 

What was the Background of the Sonu v. CBI Case?  

• On 7th April  2017, the Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda, New Delhi, filed a complaint with the CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch regarding financial irregularities at the bank's Azadpur Branch during the demonetization period. 
• The complaint alleged fraudulent transactions involving misuse of demonetized Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes (Specified Bank Notes). 
• The CBI registered the case on 7th April 2017. While the petitioner was not initially named, he was later implicated following a subsequent complaint by the bank dated 21st April 2017. 
• The petitioner worked as a Single Window Operator – A (SWO-A) at Bank of Baroda's Azadpur Branch in Delhi. 
• During investigation, the CBI examined bank records and statements, finding that the petitioner allegedly: 
  • Falsified cash deposit slips. 
  • Altered transaction records. 
  • Replaced valid currency deposited by customers with demonetized notes. 
  • Enabled unauthorized exchange of demonetized notes in violation of RBI regulations. 
• The CBI filed a chargesheet against the petitioner under: 
  • Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• On 22nd December 2022, the prosecution filed an application seeking to: 
  • Place on record a complete screenshot from the bank's Finacle System's OHDTM menu. 
  • Recall and re-examine four witnesses. 
  • The screenshot contained transaction numbers linking the petitioner to the alleged fraud. 
• Trial Court's Observations: 
  • The screenshots sought to be placed on record were not new documents but complete copies of incomplete screenshots already on record. 
  • The incomplete filing was a non-deliberate fault on the part of the Investigating Officer, and the delay in moving the application was partly due to:  
    • Courts remaining closed during pandemic (March 2020). 
    • Court vacancy  
    • after transfer of previous judge (Nov 2021 to April 2022). 
    • Transfer of earlier prosecutor. 
  • Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to:  
    • Allow additional evidence at any stage of trial. 
    • Allow additional documents if essential for just decision. 
    • Provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. 
  • The recall of witnesses was necessary because:  
    • They were earlier shown only incomplete screenshots. 
    • They needed opportunity to clarify disputes about transaction numbers. 
    • Complete screenshots would help bring clarity to the record. 
  • Based on the above observations the trial court allowed the application of CBI. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the present appeal has been filed before the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court made the following observations: 
  • On Document Admission:  
    • The complete screenshot does not constitute fresh evidence. 
    • It's merely a rectification of an inadvertent omission. 
    • No new allegations or material changes to prosecution's case. 
    • Does not require compliance with Section 173(8) CrPC. 
  • On Fair Trial Rights:  
    • No prejudice caused to accused. 
    • Accused will get opportunity to cross-examine recalled witnesses. 
    • Accused can challenge document on all permissible grounds. 
    • No material prejudice justifying court's interference. 
  • On Procedural Aspects:  
    • Document was already part of record though incomplete. 
    • No further investigation was conducted. 
    • No new evidence collected beyond original possession. 
    • Section 173(8) CrPC not applicable. 
  • On Justice and Fair Adjudication:  
    • Criminal trial's purpose is to ensure best possible evidence. 
    • Minor omissions shouldn't hinder court's ability to ascertain truth. 
    • Incomplete evidentiary record would lead to inconclusive assessment. 
    • Technical flaws shouldn't prevent proper adjudication. 
• Based on the above observations the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the trial court finding it legally justified and procedurally sound. 

What is Section 193 of BNSS? 

About:  

• Section 173 of CrPC mandates that upon completing an investigation, the officer in charge must submit a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offense.  
• This report, commonly known as a police report or charge sheet, must detail whether an offense appears to have been committed, the names of the accused, the nature of evidence collected, and whether the accused have been arrested.   
• The provision also requires that in cases where the accused has been released on bail, the report must state whether the complainant has been informed of their right to object to such release.  
• Under new criminal law this provision is given under Section 193 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).  

Legal Provisions of Section 193 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 

• Section 193 of BNSS deals with Report of police officer on completion of investigation.  
• Temporal Requirements:   
  • All investigations must be completed without unnecessary delay.  
  • For specific offenses (sections 64-68, 70-71 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4, 6, 8, 10 of POCSO Act), investigations must be completed within two months from the date of information recording.  
• Reporting Requirements:   
  • Upon completion, the officer must forward a report to an empowered Magistrate.  
  • Electronic communication is permitted for report submission.  
• The report must contain specified elements including:  
  • Names of parties  
  • Nature of information  
  • Names of persons acquainted with case circumstances   
  • Whether an offense appears committed and by whom  
  • Arrest status of accused  
  • Release status on bond/bail  
  • Custody forwarding information   
  • Medical examination reports for specific offenses  
• Communication Obligations:   
  • Officers must inform investigation progress to informant/victim within 90 days.  
  • Communication can be through any means, including electronic.  
  • Action taken must be communicated to the original informant as per State Government rules.  
• Supervisory Provisions:   
  • Where appointed, superior officers may direct further investigation pending Magistrate orders.  
  • Reports may need to be submitted through superior officers as per State Government directives.  
• Documentation Requirements:   
  • All relevant documents for prosecution must be forwarded with the report.  
  • Statements of proposed prosecution witnesses must be included.  
  • Officers may request exclusion of statement parts deemed not relevant or inexpedient.  
• Further Investigation Provisions:   
  • Further investigation is permitted after the initial report submission.  
  • Additional evidence requires forwarding of further reports.  
  • During trial, further investigation requires Court permission.  
  • Such an investigation must be completed within 90 days.  
  • The court may extend the 90-day period.  
• Procedural Safeguards:   
  • Magistrates can make orders regarding discharge of bonds.  
  • Specified number of report copies must be submitted for accused.  
  • Electronic communication of reports is considered a valid service.