Is It Legally Permissible to Produce Additional Evidence Post-Chargesheet?

In criminal trials, the timing and manner in which evidence is presented play a critical role in ensuring procedural fairness and the rights of the accused. A common legal dilemma is whether the prosecution can produce additional material after filing the chargesheet, particularly documents or evidence that were in existence at the time of filing but were omitted due to inadvertence or oversight.

This issue was recently addressed in the Supreme Court judgment dated 23 May 2025 in Sameer Sandhir v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2025 INSC 776], which reaffirmed the permissibility of producing additional evidence post-chargesheet under certain conditions. This article analyses the legal framework, key judicial interpretations, and the implications of this landmark ruling.

Legal Framework: Section 173 CrPC [Section 193 BNSS]

Section 173(5) CrPC [Section 193(6) BNSS] – Filing of Chargesheet

• Under Section 173(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), once an investigation is complete, the police must forward to the Magistrate:
• The police report (chargesheet), and

All documents or relevant extracts upon which the prosecution proposes to rely.

The section appears mandatory, but judicial interpretations have nuanced this understanding.

Section 173(8) CrPC [Section 193(9) BNSS] – Further Investigation

This provision allows for further investigation even after a chargesheet has been filed. The investigating agency may collect and produce fresh evidence and submit a supplementary chargesheet.

Factual Matrix of the Case

In Sameer Sandhir v. CBI, the appellant was Accused No. 7 in a corruption case under the PC Act and IPC. The controversy revolved around two Compact Discs (CDs) containing intercepted telephonic conversations. While the CDs were seized and analysed by CFSL, they were inadvertently not submitted along with the supplementary chargesheet filed on 30 October 2013.

Later, during trial proceedings in September 2014, the CBI attempted to play the CDs in court. Objections were raised since:

• The CDs were not submitted with the chargesheet.
• Copies were not furnished to the accused.

The Special Judge allowed CBI’s application to produce the CDs post-chargesheet. This was challenged by the appellant in the High Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Advanced

Appellant’s Contentions

• The CDs were available at the time of the chargesheet; hence, they cannot be introduced later under the guise of “further investigation” under Section 173(8) CrPC.
• Reliance was placed on Mariam Fasihuddin v. State [2024 SCC OnLine SC 58], where the Court held that “further investigation” must yield new material.
• Cited Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Gorantyal [(2020) 7 SCC 1] for the principle that the prosecution cannot fill lacunae in the trial.
• Asserted that Section 173(5) CrPC should be treated as mandatory, not merely directory.

CBI’s Submissions

• The CDs were seized and sent for forensic analysis before the chargesheet, but the CFSL report arrived after the first chargesheet.
• A supplementary chargesheet was filed with the CFSL report, but the CDs were inadvertently not filed.
• There is no prejudice caused to the accused, and courts have recognized that inadvertently omitted documents can be produced later with court permission.

The Supreme Court’s Observations

Core Findings

1. No Prohibition in Law: The Court reaffirmed that there is no bar in law against the production of additional documents post-chargesheet, especially if their omission was inadvertent.
2. R.S. Pai Doctrine Upheld: The Court relied on CBI v. R.S. Pai [(2002) 5 SCC 82], which held that Section 173(5) CrPC is directory. If documents were missed due to oversight, they may be filed later with the court’s permission.
3. Supplementary Chargesheet Validity: Since the CDs were mentioned in the supplementary chargesheet and CFSL report, their eventual production does not constitute an abuse of process.
4. Accused’s Rights Protected: The Court allowed the appellant to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination regarding the CDs, ensuring no prejudice.
5. Authenticity Challenge Remains Open: The Court clarified that while the CDs may be allowed on record, their authenticity, admissibility under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and relevance can still be challenged during trial.

Key Precedents Discussed

1. CBI v. R.S. Pai (2002)

Held that omission to submit documents with the chargesheet is not fatal if the prosecution later seeks to produce them with court approval. Section 173(5) is directory, not mandatory.

2. Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. (2024)

Emphasised that “further investigation” must uncover new evidence, and cannot merely supplement existing materials already known at the time of the chargesheet.

However, the 2025 Court clarified that Mariam Fasihuddin did not overrule R.S. Pai, and only applies where no new evidence is found.

3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyl & Ors. (2020)

While reiterating R.S. Pai, it cautioned that courts must avoid allowing evidence to “fill lacunae” unless justified and subject to fairness and judicial discretion.

Section 207 CrPC [Section 230 BNSS] – Accused’s Right to Documents

Though the appellant invoked Sidharth Vashisht and V.K. Sasikala cases, emphasising mandatory disclosure under Section 207 CrPC, the Court held that those cases deal with the accused’s right to access evidence, and do not preclude prosecution from seeking to place omitted documents on record with due process.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Reaffirmation of Prosecutorial Fairness

The ruling strikes a balance between ensuring fair trial rights of the accused and preventing genuine prosecutorial errors from undermining justice.

2. Widened Scope of Judicial Discretion

The Court reemphasised the trial judge’s discretion to permit additional evidence post-chargesheet, provided:

• No prejudice is caused to the accused.
• The accused has an opportunity to recall witnesses or challenge admissibility.

3. Safeguarding Procedural Rights

While allowing the production of CDs, the Court underscored that:

• The authenticity of evidence is not automatically accepted.
• The accused’s rights to challenge such documents remain intact.

4. Reinforces the Directory Nature of Section 173(5) CrPC [Section 193(6) BNSS]

This judgment conclusively settles that Section 173(5) CrPC is directory and not mandatory. Inadvertent non-submission of documents does not vitiate proceedings if prejudice is avoided.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sameer Sandhir v. CBI is a vital reaffirmation of procedural flexibility within criminal law. It recognises that while the law mandates the production of all relevant documents with the chargesheet, procedural omissions that do not prejudice the accused can be corrected with the court’s permission.

The ruling strikes an important balance between prosecutorial efficiency and the accused’s rights, making it a landmark case for criminal procedure jurisprudence. By holding that the CDs could be produced post-chargesheet, the Court provided much-needed clarity on the issue and fortified the principles of fair trial and judicial discretion.

Important Link