On Behalf of the Accused a Contention About Production of Documents Relying Upon

8/17/2019 On Behalf of the Accused a Contention About Production of Documents Relying Upon

1/23

On behalf of the accused a contention about production of documents relying upon Section 91 of the Code has also been made. Section 91 of the Code reads as under:

"Summons to produce document or other thing. (1) Wheneer any Court or any officer in charge of a policestation considers that the production of any document orother thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any inestigation! inuiry! trial or other proceeding underthis Code by or before such Court or officer! such Courtmay issue a summons! or such officer a #ritten order! tothe person in #hose possession or po#er such document

or thing is belieed to be! reuiring him to attend andproduce it! or to produce it! at the time and place stated inthe summons or order.($)...........................................................................(%)..........................................................................." &ny document or other thing enisaged under theaforesaid proision can be ordered to be produced on

finding that the same is 'necessary or desirable for thepurpose of inestigation! inuiry! trial or otherproceedings under the Code'. he first and foremostreuirement of the section is about the document beingnecessary or desirable. he necessity or desirability #ouldhae to be seen #ith reference to the stage #hen a prayeris made for the production. If any document isnecessary or desirable for the defence of the

accused, the question of invokingSection 91 at theinitial stage of framing of a charge would not arisesince defence of the accused is not relevant at thatstage. When the section refers to inestigation! inuiry!trial or other proceedings! it is to be borne in mind that

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/


2/23

under the section a police officer may moe the Court forsummoning and production of a document as may benecessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In

so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlementto seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the sectiontals of the document being necessary and desirable! it isimplicit that necessity and desirability is to be e*aminedconsidering the stage #hen such a prayer for summoningand production is made and the party #ho maes it #hether police or accused. +f under Section $$, #hat is

necessary and releant is only the record produced interms of Section 1,% of the Code! the accused cannot atthat stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. -nderSection91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a #ritten order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section

91 does not confer any right on the accused to producedocument in his possession to proe his defence.Section91 presupposes that #hen the document is not producedprocess may be initiated to compel production thereof.eliance on behalf of the accused #as placed on someobserations made in the case of Om /arash Sharma .C0+! elhi 2($333) 4 SCC 5,96. +n that case the applicationfiled by the accused for summoning and production of

documents #as re7ected by the Special 8udge and thatorder #as affirmed by the igh Court. Challenging thoseorders before this Court! reliance #as placed on behalf of the accused upon Satish ehra's case (supra). he

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412034/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1498883/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1498883/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412034/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1498883/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1498883/


3/23

contentions based on Satish ehra's case hae beennoticed in para ; as under:"he learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand

taen before the courts belo# #ith great ehemence by initing our attention to the decision of this Court reportedin Satish ehra .elhi &dmn. ((1995) 9 SCC ,55) laying emphasis on thefact the ery learned 8udge in the igh Court has taen adifferent ie# in such matters! in the decision reportedin &sho


4/23

dismissed and order was upheld by !igh ourtand this ourt. "ut observations were made inpara # to the effect that if the accused could

produce any reliable material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very sustainability of the case, a refusal to look into thematerial so produced may result in in$ustice,apart from averting an e%ercise in futility at thee%pense of valuable $udicial&public time, theseobservations are clearly obiter dicta and in any case of no consequence in view of conclusion

reached by us hereinbefore. 'urther, theobservations cannot be understood to mean thatthe accused has a right to produce any documentat stage of framing of charge having regard to theclear mandate of Sections (() and ((* in hapter1* and Sections (+9 and (- in hapter 19. We are of the ie# that 7urisdiction under Section 91 of the

Code #hen inoed by accused the necessity anddesirability #ould hae to be seen by the Court in theconte*t of the purpose inestigation! inuiry! trial or otherproceedings under the Code. It would also have to be

borne in mind that law does not permit a roving orfishing inquiry. Supreme ourt of IndiaState f rissa vs /ebendra 0ath adhi on (9

0ovember, (--

"ench2 3.4. Sabharwal, /.5. /harmadhikari,Tarun hatter$ee

Citation;AIR2005SC359,, (2005)1SCC568,

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56243/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1476639/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56243/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1476639/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/


5/23

Can the trial court at the time of framing of chargeconsider material filed by the accused! is the point fordetermination in these matters. +n Satish ehra . elhi

&dministration and &nother2(1995) 9 SCC ,556! a t#o 7udge 0ench 7udgment! it #as obsered that if the accusedsucceeds in producing any reliable material at the stage of taing cogni>ance or framing of charge #hich might fatally affect een the ery sustainability of the case! it is un7ust tosuggest that no such material should be looed into by thecourt at that stage. +t #as held that the ob7ect of proidingan opportunity to the accused of maing submissions as

enisaged in Section $$, of the Code of Criminal/rocedure! 19,% (for short! 'the Code') is to enable thecourt to decide #hether it is necessary to proceed toconduct the trial. +f the materials produced by the accusedeen at that early stage #ould clinch the issue! #hy shouldthe court shut it out saying that such documents need beproduced only after #asting a lot more time in the name of

trial proceedings. +t #as further obsered that there isnothing in the Code #hich shrins the scope of suchaudience to oral arguments and! therefore! the trial court #ould be #ithin its po#er to consider een material #hichthe accused may produce at the stage contemplatedin Section $$, of the Code. When the arguments in the present case #ere heard by at#o?7udge 0ench! considering arious decisions including

three?7udge 0ench decisions in Superindent andemembrancer of legal &ffairs! West 0engal . &nil


6/23

only the material placed before it by the inestigatingagency! there being no reuirement in la# for the court togrant at that stage either an opportunity to the accused to

produce eidence in defence or consider such eidence thedefence may produce at that stage. 0ut haing regard tothe ie#s e*pressed in Satish ehra's case (supra) it #asdirected that the matter should be referred to a larger0ench. he order referring the matter to larger 0ench isreported in State of Orissa . ebendra @ath/adhi 2($33%) $ SCC ,116. &ccordingly! these matters hae been placed before us to determine the uestion aboe?

noticed.he ie#s e*pressed in Satish ehra's case (supra) hae been strongly supported by learned counsel for theaccused on the ground of 7ustice! euity and fairness andalso on the touchstone of &rticle $1 of the Constitution of +ndia contending that reersal of that ie# #ould lead tounnecessary harassment to the accused by haing to face

the trial for years! #aste of aluable time of the court!heay cost! despite the fact that een at the early stage of framing of charge or taing cogni>ance the accused is in aposition to produce unimpeachable material of sterlinguality to clinchingly sho# that there is no prospect of coniction at the conclusion of the trial. Satish ehra'scase #as further supported on interpretation of Sections$$, and $%9 of the Code. On the other hand! it #as

contended on behalf of the State that the obserationsmade in Satish ehra's case run counter to the ie#se*pressed by this court in large number of decisions! itamounts to upsetting #ell settled legal propositions andmaing nugatory amendments made in Code of Criminal



7/23

/rocedure from time to time and #ould result inconducting a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge ortaing cogni>ance. Such a course #ould not only be

contrary to the ob7ect and the scheme of the Code but #ould also result in total #astage of the court time becauseof conducting of t#o trials! one at the stage of framingcharge and the other after the charge is framed. +t #ascontended that on true construction of Section $$, of theCode only the material sent by prosecution along #ith therecord of the case and the documents sent along #ith itcan be considered by the trial court at the time of framing

of the charge. he accused at that stage has no right toplace before the court any material. &t the stage of framing charge! the trial court is reuired toconsider #hether there are sufficient grounds to proceedagainst the accused. Section $$, of the Code proides forthe eentuality #hen the accused shall be discharged. +f not discharged! the charge against the accused is reuired

to be framed under Section $$A. hese t#o sections readas under:"Section $$, of Cr./C.ischarge +f! upon consideration of the record of the caseand the documents submitted there#ith! and after hearingthe submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf! the 8udge considers that there is not sufficientground for the proceeding against the accused! he shall

discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.Section $$A of Cr./C Braming of charge (1) +f! after suchconsideration and hearing as aforesaid! the 8udge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that theaccused has committed an offence #hich



8/23

(a) is not e*clusiely triable by the Court of Session! hemay! frame a charge against the accused and! by order!transfer the case for trial to the Chief 8udicial agistrate!

and thereupon the Chief 8udicial agistrate shall try theoffence in accordance #ith the procedure for the trial of #arrant?cases instituted on a police report(b) is e*clusiely triable by the Court! he shall frame in #riting a charge against the accused.($) Where the 8udge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub?section (1)! the charge shall be read and e*plained tothe accused and the accused shall be ased #hether he

pleads guilty of the offence or claims to be tried."Similarly! in respect of #arrant cases triable by agistrates! instituted on a police report! Sections$%9 and $;3 of the Code are the releant statutory proisions. Section $%9 reuires the agistrate to consider'the police report and the documents sent #ith itunder Section 1,%' and! if necessary! e*amine the accused

and after giing accused an opportunity of being heard! if the agistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless! the accused is liable to be discharged by recording reasons thereof. What is to the meaning of the e*pression 'the record of thecase' as used in Section $$, of the Code. hough the #ord'case' is not defined in the Code but Section $39 thro#slight on the interpretation to be placed on the said

#ord. Section $39 #hich deals #ith the commitment of case to Court of Session #hen offence is triable e*clusiely by it! inter alia! proides that #hen it appears to theagistrate that the offence is triable e*clusiely by theCourt of Session! he shall commit 'the case' to the Court of

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/897083/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/897083/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150946/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/897083/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412034/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/897083/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/897083/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150946/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/897083/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1412034/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/


9/23

Session and send to that court 'the record of the case' andthe document and articles! if any! #hich are to beproduced in eidence and notify the /ublic /rosecutor of

the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. +t iseident that the record of the case and documentssubmitted there#ith as postulated in Section $$, relate tothe case and the documents referred in Section $39. hatis the plain meaning of Section $$, read #ithSection$39 of the Code. @o proision in the Code grants to theaccused any right to file any material or document at thestage of framing of charge. hat right is granted only at the

stage of the trial. Burther! the scheme of the Code #hene*amined in the light of the proisions of the old code of 1A9A! maes the position more clear. +n the old code! there #as no proision similar toSection $$,. Section $$, #asincorporated in the Code #ith a ie# to sae the accusedfrom prolonged harassment #hich is a necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. +t is calculated

to eliminate harassment to accused persons #hen theeidential materials gathered after inestigation fall shortof minimum legal reuirements. +f the eidence een if fully accepted cannot sho# that the accused committed theoffence! the accused deseres to be discharged. +n the oldCode! the procedure as contained in Sections $3, and $3,(&) #as fairly lengthy. Section $3,! inter alia! proidedthat the agistrate! #here the case is e*clusiely triable by

a Court of Session in any proceedings instituted on a policereport! shall follo# the procedure specified in Sectioin $3,(&). -nder Section $3, (&) in any proceeding instituted ona police report the agistrate #as reuired to hold inuiry in terms proided under sub?section (1)! to tae eidence

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/


10/23

as proided in sub? section (;)! the accused could cross?e*amine and the prosecution could re?e*amine the #itnesses as proided in sub?section (4)! discharge the

accused if in the opinion of the agistrate the eidenceand documents disclosed no grounds for committing himfor trial! as proided in sub? section (5) and to commit theaccused for trial after framing of charge as proided insub?section (,)! summon the #itnesses of the accused toappear before the court to #hich he has been committed asproided in sub?section (11) and send the record of theinuiry and any #eapon or other thing #hich is to be

produced in eidence! to the Court of Session as proidedin sub?section (1;). he aforesaid Sections$3, and $3,(&) hae been omitted from the Code and ane# Section $39 enacted on the recommendation of theDa# Commission contained in its ;1st eport. +t #asrealised that the commitment inuiry under the old Code #as resulting in inordinate delay and sered no useful

purpose. hat inuiry has! therefore! been dispensed #ithin the Code #ith the ob7ect of e*peditious disposal of cases. +nstead of committal agistrate framing the charge!it is no# to be framed by Court of Session under Section$$A in case the accused is not discharged under Section$$,. his change brought out in the code is also reuiredto be ept in ie# #hile determining the uestion.-nder the Code! the eidence can be taen only after

framing of charge. @o#! let us e*amine the decisions #hich hae a bearing on the point in issue.+n State of 0ihar . amesh Singh 2 (19,,) ; SCC %9 6considering the scope of Sections $$,and $$A of the Code!it #as held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/943850/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1613898/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887219/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/943850/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/


11/23

obligatory for the 8udge to consider in any detail and #eigh in a sensitie balance #hether the facts! if proed! #ould be incompatible #ith the innocence of the accused

or not. &t that stage! the court is not to see #hether thereis sufficient ground for coniction of the accused or #hether the trial is sure to end in his coniction. Strongsuspicion! at the initial stage of framing of charge! issufficient to frame the charge and in that eent it is notopen to say that there is no sufficient ground forproceeding against the accused. +n Superintendant andemembrancer of legal &ffairs! West 0engal . &nil


12/23

be uashed if the eidence #hich the prosecutor proposesto adduce to proe the guilt of the accused! een if fully accepted! cannot sho# that the accused committed the

particular offence. +n that case! there #ould be nosufficient ground for proceeding #ith the trial.+n State of aharashtra . /riya Sharan ahara7 andOthers 2(199,) ; SCC %9%6 it #as held that at Sections$$, and $$A stage the court is reuired to ealuate thematerial and documents on record #ith a ie# to findingout if the facts emerging therefrom taen at their face alue disclose the e*istence of all the ingredients

constituting the alleged offence. he court may! for thislimited purpose! sift the eidence as it cannot be e*pectedeen at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecutionstates as gospel truth een if it is opposed to commonsense or the broad probabilities of the case. &ll the decisions! #hen they hold that there can only belimited ealuation of materials and documents on record

and sifting of eidence to prima facie find out #hethersufficient ground e*ists or not for the purpose of proceeding further #ith the trial! hae so held #ithreference to materials and documents produced by theprosecution and not the accused. he decisions proceed onthe basis of settled legal position that the material asproduced by the prosecution alone is to be considered andnot the one produced by the accused. he latter aspect

relating to the accused though has not been specifically stated! yet it is implicit in the decisions. +t seems to haenot been specifically so stated as it #as taen to be #ellsettled proposition. his aspect! ho#eer! has beenaderted to in State &nti?Corruption 0ureau! yderabad

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/835869/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/835869/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/835869/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/835869/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056165/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/411062/


13/23

and &nother . /. Suryapraasam 21999 SCC (Crl.) %,%6 #here considering the scope of Sections $%9 and $;3 of the Code it #as held that at the time of framing of charge!

#hat the trial court is reuired to! and can consider areonly the police report referred to under Section 1,% of theCode and the documents sent #ith it. he only right theaccused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that (emphasis supplied). he 7udgment of theigh Court uashing the proceedings by looing into thedocuments filed by the accused in support of his claim thatno case #as made out against him een before the trial had

commenced #as reersed by this Court. +t may be noticedhere that learned counsel for the parties addressed thearguments on the basis that the principles applicable #ould be same #hether the case be under Sections$$, and $$A or underSections $%9 and $;3 of the Code. &s opposed to the aforesaid legal position! the learnedcounsel appearing for the accused contended that the

procedure #hich depries the accused to see discharge atthe initial stage by filing unimpeachable and unassailablematerial of sterling uality #ould be illegal and iolatieof &rticle $1 of the Constitution since that #ould result inthe accused haing to face the trial for long number of years despite the fact that he is liable to be discharged if granted an opportunity to produce the material and onperusal thereof by the court. he contention is that such an

interpretation of Sections $$, and $%9 of the Code #ouldrun the ris of those proisions being declared ultra iresof &rticles 1; and $1 of the Constitution and to sae thesaid proisions from being declared ultra ires! thereasonable interpretation to be placed thereupon is the



14/23

one #hich gies a right! ho#soeer! limited that right may be! to the accused to produce unimpeachable andunassailable material to sho# his innocence at the stage of

framing charge. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. hereliance on &rticles 1; and $1 is misplaced. he scheme of the Code and ob7ect #ith #hich Section $$, #asincorporated and Sections $3, and $3, (&) omitted haealready been noticed. Burther! at the stage of framing of charge roing and fishing inuiry is impermissible. +f thecontention of the accused is accepted! there #ould be a

mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. hat #oulddefeat the ob7ect of the Code. +t is #ell?settled that at thestage of framing of charge the defence of the accusedcannot be put forth. he acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused #ould meanpermitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stageof framing of charge and for e*amination thereof at that

stage #hich is against the criminal 7urisprudence. 0y #ay of illustration! it may be noted that the plea of alibi taen by the accused may hae to be e*amined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused isaccepted despite the #ell settled proposition that it is forthe accused to lead eidence at the trial to sustain such aplea. he accused #ould be entitled to produce materialsand documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of

framing of the charge! in case #e accept the contention putforth on behalf of the accused. hat has neer been theintention of the la# #ell settled for oer one hundred yearsno#. +t is in this light that the proision about hearing thesubmssions of the accused as postulated by Section $$, is



15/23

to be understood. +t only means hearing the submissionsof the accused on the record of the case as filed by theprosecution and documents submitted there#ith and

nothing more. he e*pression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to begranted to the accused and thereby changing the settledla#. &t the state of framing of charge hearing thesubmissions of the accused has to be confined to thematerial produced by the police.+t may also be noted that! in fact! in one of the cases underconsideration (SD/ @o.191$) the plea of alibi has been

taen by the accused in a case under Section %3$ read #ithother proisions of the +ndian /enal Code. We may alsonote that the decisions cited by learned counsel for theaccused #here the prosecutions under the +ncome a* &ct hae been uashed as a result of findings in thedepartmental appeals hae no releance for consideringthe uestion inoled in these matters. eliance placed on

behalf of the accused on some obserations madein inashi 0ala . Sudhir


16/23

"+f charges are framed in accordance #ith Section$;3 Cr/C on a finding that a prima case has been madeout ? as has been done in the instant case ? the persons

arraigned may! if he feels aggrieed! inoe the reisional 7urisdiction of the igh Court or the Sessions 8udge tocontend that the charge?sheet submitted under Section1,% Cr/C and documents sent #ith it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for #hich he is charged and the reisional court if so satisfiedcan uash the charges framed against him. o put itdifferently! once charges are framed under Sections

$;3 Cr/C the igh Court in its reisional 7urisdiction #ould not be 7ustified in relying upon documents otherthan those referred to in Sections $%9 and$;3 Cr/C nor #ould it be 7ustified in inoing its inherent 7urisdictionunder section ;A$ Cr/C to uash the same e*cept in thoserare cases #here forensic e*igencies and formidablecompulsions 7ustify such a course. We hasten to add een

in such e*ceptional cases the igh Court can loo into only those documents #hich are unimpeachable and can belegally translated into releant eidence."+t is eident from the aboe that this Court #asconsidering the rare and e*ceptional cases #here the ighCourt may consider unimpeachable eidence #hilee*ercising 7urisdiction for uashing under Section ;A$ of the Code. +n the present case! ho#eer! the uestion

inoled is not about the e*ercise of 7urisdictionunder Section ;A$ of the Code #here along #ith thepetition the accused may file unimpeachable eidence of sterling uality and on that basis see uashing! but isabout the right claimed by the accused to produce material



17/23

at the stage of framing of charge. eliance has also beenplaced on decision in the case of /.S.a7ya . State of 0ihar2(1995) 9 SCC 16 #here this court re7ected the

contention urged on behalf of the State that the points on #hich the accused #as seeing uashing of criminalproceedings could be established by giing eidence atappropriate time and no case had been made out foruashing the charge itself. he charge #as uashed by thisCourt. +n this case too only on peculiar facts of the case!this Court came to the conclusion that the criminalproceedings initiated against the appellant?accused could

not be pursued. hose peculiar facts hae been noticed inparagraphs 1;! 1,! 1A and 19 of the decision. hecontention of the accused based on those peculiar facts has been noticed in para 14 and that of respondent that theC0+ #as entitled to proceed on the basis of the materialaailable and the mere allegations made by the accusedcannot tae the place of proof and that had to be gone into

and established in the final hearing! has been noticed inpara 15. &fter noticing those contentions and the decisionin the case of State of aryana . 0ha7an Dal2199$(Suppl.1) %%46 laying do#n the guidelines relating to thee*ercise of e*traordinary po#er under &rticle $$5 or theinherent po#er under Section ;A$ of the Code foruashing an B+ or a complaint! this Court! on the peculiarfacts! came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant

could be brought under more than one head gien in0ha7an Dal's case (supra) #ithout any difficulty so as touash the proceedings. +n this bacground! obserations #ere made in para $% on #hich reliance has been placedon behalf of the accused #hereby re7ecting the contention



18/23

of the State as noticed in para 15! the Court came to theconclusion that the criminal proceedings desere to beuashed. +n this case too the uestion #as not about the

right of the accused to file material at the stage of framingcharge but #as about uashing of proceedings in e*erciseof po#er under Section ;A$ of the Code. he decision inthe case of State of adhya /radesh . ohanDalSoni 2($333) 5 SCC %%A6 sought to be relied upon on behalf of the accused is also of no assistance because inthat case an earlier order of the igh Court #herein trialcourt #as directed to tae into consideration the

documents made aailable by the accused duringinestigation #hile framing charge had attained finality since that order #as not challenged and in that ie# thisCourt came to the conclusion that the trial court #as bound and goerned by the said direction of the ighCourt #hich had not been follo#ed. &s a result of aforesaiddiscussion! in our ie#! clearly the la# is that at the time of

framing charge or taing cogni>ance the accused has noright to produce any material. Satish ehra's case holdingthat the trial court has po#ers to consider een materials #hich accused may produce at the stage of Section $$, of the Code has not been correctly decided. On behalf of theaccused a contention about production of documentsrelying upon Section 91 of the Code has also beenmade. Section 91 of the Code reads as under:

"Summons to produce document or other thing. (1) Wheneer any Court or any officer in charge of a policestation considers that the production of any document orother thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any inestigation! inuiry! trial or other proceeding under



19/23

this Code by or before such Court or officer! such Courtmay issue a summons! or such officer a #ritten order! tothe person in #hose possession or po#er such document

or thing is belieed to be! reuiring him to attend andproduce it! or to produce it! at the time and place stated inthe summons or order.($)...........................................................................(%)..........................................................................." &ny document or other thing enisaged under theaforesaid proision can be ordered to be produced onfinding that the same is 'necessary or desirable for the

purpose of inestigation! inuiry! trial or otherproceedings under the Code'. he first and foremostreuirement of the section is about the document beingnecessary or desirable. he necessity or desirability #ouldhae to be seen #ith reference to the stage #hen a prayeris made for the production. +f any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused! the uestion of

inoingSection 91 at the initial stage of framing of acharge #ould not arise since defence of the accused is notreleant at that stage. When the section refers toinestigation! inuiry! trial or other proceedings! it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may moe the Court for summoning and production of adocument as may be necessary at any of the stagesmentioned in the section. +n so far as the accused is

concerned! his entitlement to see order under Section91 #ould ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section tals of the document being necessary and desirable! it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be e*amined considering the stage #hen such a

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/


20/23

prayer for summoning and production is made and theparty #ho maes it #hether police or accused. +f under Section $$, #hat is necessary and releant is only

the record produced in terms of Section 1,% of the Code!the accused cannot at that stage inoe Section 91 to see production of any document to sho# his innocence.-nderSection 91 summons for production of documentcan be issued by Court and under a #ritten order an officerin charge of police station can also direct productionthereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on theaccused to produce document in his possession to proe

his defence.Section 91 presupposes that #hen thedocument is not produced process may be initiated tocompel production thereof. eliance on behalf of theaccused #as placed on some obserations made in the caseof Om /arash Sharma . C0+! elhi 2($333) 4 SCC 5,96.+n that case the application filed by the accused forsummoning and production of documents #as re7ected by

the Special 8udge and that order #as affirmed by the ighCourt. Challenging those orders before this Court! reliance #as placed on behalf of the accused upon Satish ehra'scase (supra). he contentions based on Satish ehra'scase hae been noticed in para ; as under:"he learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the standtaen before the courts belo# #ith great ehemence by initing our attention to the decision of this Court reported

in Satish ehra .elhi &dmn. ((1995) 9 SCC ,55) laying emphasis on thefact the ery learned 8udge in the igh Court has taen adifferent ie# in such matters! in the decision reportedin &sho


21/23

&hmed! the learned &S= for the respondents not only contended that the decisions relied upon for the appellants #ould not 7ustify the claim of the appellant in this case! at

this stage! but also inited! e*tensiely our attention to thee*ercise undertaen by the courts belo# to find out thereleance! desirability and necessity of those documents as #ell as the need for issuing any such directions as claimedat that stage and conseuently there #as no 7ustification #hatsoeer! to interene by an interference at the presentstage of the proceedings.+n so far as Section 91 is concerned! it #as rightly held that

the #idth of the po#ers of that section #as unlimited butthere #ere inbuilt inherent limitations as to the stage orpoint of time of its e*ercise! commensurately #ith thenature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability! to fulfill the tas or achiee the ob7ect.0efore the trial court the stage #as to find out #hetherthere #as sufficient ground for proceeding to the ne*t

stage against the accused. he application filed by theaccused under Section 91 of the Code for summoning andproduction of document #as dismissed and order #asupheld by igh Court and this Court. 0ut obserations #ere made in para 5 to the effect that if the accused couldproduce any reliable material een at that stage #hichmight totally affect een the ery sustainability of the case!a refusal to loo into the material so produced may result

in in7ustice! apart from aerting an e*ercise in futility atthe e*pense of aluable 7udicialEpublic time! theseobserations are clearly obiter dicta and in any case of noconseuence in ie# of conclusion reached by ushereinbefore. Burther! the obserations cannot be

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/


22/23

understood to mean that the accused has a right toproduce any document at stage of framing of chargehaing regard to the clear mandate of Sections

$$, and $$A in Chapter 1A and Sections $%9 and $;3 inChapter 19. We are of the ie# that 7urisdiction under Section 91 of theCode #hen inoed by accused the necessity anddesirability #ould hae to be seen by the Court in theconte*t of the purpose inestigation! inuiry! trial or otherproceedings under the Code. +t #ould also hae to be borne in mind that la# does not permit a roing or fishing

inuiry. egarding the argument of accused haing to facethe trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling uality! the #idth of the po#ers of the igh Court under Section ;A$ of theCode and &rticle $$5 of Constitution of +ndia is unlimited #hereunder in the interests of 7ustice the igh Court canmae such orders as may be necessary to preent abuse of

the process of any Court or other#ise to secure the ends of 7ustice #ithin the parameters laid do#n in 0ha7an Dal'scase.he result of the aforesaid discussion is that Criminal &ppeal @o.;9, of $331 is allo#ed! the impugned 7udgmentof the igh Court is set aside. he trial court is directed toproceed from the stage of framing of charge. aingregard to the fact that the charges #ere framed about 11

years ago #e direct the trial court to e*peditiously conclude the trial and as far as possible it shall be heldfrom day?to?day.Special Deae /etition (Crl.) @o.191$ of $33% and Criminal &ppeal @o.;5 of $33; are dismissed. Since Special Deae

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56243/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1476639/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1679850/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126423/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56243/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1476639/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/789969/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788840/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1679850/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/


23/23

/etition relates to an occurrence #hich too about % years bac and the offence is under Section %3$ +ndian /enalCode and in Criminal &ppeal @o.;5 of $33; charges #ere

framed about $ years ago! #e direct that the trial in thesecases shall also be concluded e*peditiously. &ll the appealsare disposed of accordingly.- See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/2016/05/whether-accused-can-seek-production-of.html?

utmcontent!buffere"#c1$utmmedium!social$utmsource!facebook.com$utmcampai%n!buffer&sthash.s'n(sm

k).dpuf
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560742/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560742/