Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : PUNNAIAH
K.V.Rama Krishna Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State through Police, Sangareddy the P.P.High Court of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-27-74
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 91 - SUMMONING OF DOCUMENTS - POWER OF COURT - DISCRETION OF COURT - JUDICIAL EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - REVISION - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, filed a petition under Section 91 CrPC seeking the summoning of certain documents before the framing of charges. The magistrate dismissed the petition, holding that the documents would be relevant only at the stage of defense and not at the stage of framing charges. The petitioner challenged this order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the magistrate erred in refusing to summon the documents at the stage of framing charges. The court held that Section 91 CrPC confers a general power on the court to summon any document if it finds that the summoning of such a document is desirable in the interests of justice and that such power can be exercised even for the purpose of framing a proper charge.
Issues: 1. Whether the magistrate has the power to summon documents under Section 91 CrPC before framing charges? 2. Whether the magistrate exercised his discretion judicially in refusing to summon the documents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 91 CrPC confers a general power on the court to summon any document if it finds that the summoning of such a document is desirable in the interests of justice and that such power can be exercised even for the purpose of framing a proper charge. 2. The court held that the magistrate failed to exercise his discretion judicially in refusing to summon the documents at the stage of framing charges. The court noted that the documents were public documents relating to the same proceedings before the magistrate and that they could not be said to be irrelevant. The court also noted that the magistrate had not considered whether the documents had a bearing on the case before refusing to summon them.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the magistrate, quashed the charge framed against the petitioner, and directed the magistrate to peruse the documents on which the petitioner relied and frame an appropriate charge after perusing them.
( 1 ) THE Petitioner is the 6th accused in C. C. No. 22 of 1972 on the file of the munsif Magistrate. Sangareddi,
( 2 ) THE S. H. O Sangareddi Police station filed charge-sheet against the Petitioner and 7 others for offences punishable under Section 409 I. P. C. before the munsif Magistrate, Sangareddi. The learned Magistrate took it on file and framed one charge against each accused. The charge against the petitioner reads as follows :"that you A-6 during 1963 to 1965 at Sangareddi being entrusted with the property of the cooperative marketing society at Sangareddi in your capacity as a public servant, namely, the President of the said society committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the property of the said Co-operative marketing society, Sangareddi to a tune of Rs. 37, 404-13 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409 I. P. C, and within my cognizance. "
( 3 ) BEFORE framing of the charges the revision Petitioner filed criminal miscellaneous petition No. 152/74 to send for the documents, the certified copies of which were filed so that the Magistrate may consider them and frame proper charge against him.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to him, the documents relate to the proceedings before arbitrator and award passed by the Arbitrator and also the decision of the High Court fn CRP. No. 926/70 in respect of the same matter. The Petitioner submitted before the Magistrate that the matter was referred to arbitrator by both parties and the arbitrator passed award fixing the liability against the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 10,056. 82 p. and against that award, the petitioner preferred C. R. P. 926/70 in this Court and Obul Reddi, J. (as he then was) fixed the liability at Rs. 5185,82 P. and modified the award to rhat extent and he, therefore, contended that the liability to be fixed against the petitioner would be the extent of Rs. 5185. 82 p but not to the extent of Rs. 37,404. 30 p. and if the documents sought to be summoned for by the accused are considered by the Magistrate, there is sufficient material in support of the case of the petitioner and they should, therefore, be summoned and perused for the purpose of framing proper charge.
( 5 ) BUT the learned Magistrate dismissed that petition holding that those documents would be relevant at the stage of defence but nor. at that stage, as the stage of the case then was to charge or discharge the accused. After dismissing the petition, the learned Magistrate framed the aforesaid charge against the petitioner.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the said order of dismissal this revision petition is filed.
( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Magistrate has got the power to send for the documents required by the accused under Section 91 Cr. P. C. even before framing the charge and the documents should be summoned in fact, for the purpose of framing proper charge and the decision of the Magistrate that those documents would be summoned and considered at the stage of defence but not at the stage of framing thecharge is erroneous and improper.
( 8 ) FROM the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the Petitioner prayed the magistrate to summon the documents on which he relies so that he (Magistrate) can pursue those documents and frame proper charge and the Petitioner sought that the provisions of Section 91 Cr. P. C. should be invoked in support of his contention. Section 91 (1) reads as follows : whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such court may Issue summons, or such officer a written order to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, cr to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.
( 9 ) A perusal of the pr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.