Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Aravind Sankar Navalgund – Appellant
Versus
State By Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 101480 of 2023 C/W Criminal Petition No. 101486 of 2023
Decided on : 24-07-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 91 - Production of records - Seeking summoning of document – To allow application and direction be issued for production of records set out for purpose of proceedings - Learned trial Judge without assigning any proper reasons for rejecting prayer of petitioners, rejected application insofar as remaining 13 documents [Para 17]
Finding of the Court: Petitioners tried their level best to get that document by filing an application under RTI Act - But they failed in their attempt to get documents obtained from Social Banking Division, Union Bank of India - Therefore, they sought for summoning same by filing an application - When application is filed by petitioners as accused specifically mentioning that they could not produce report and their attempt in getting that document failed, directing accused No.1 again to produce copy of same would not stand to reason - Attempt made by petitioners to obtain such document through RTI Act remained unsuccessful and therefore there was sufficient ground laid by petitioners for seeking summoning of said document - Copy of inspection report would not be furnished to accused at that stage as they were not facing any proceedings - When investigation agency has not collected such document, opposing application seeking summoning of such document cannot be countenanced in law as it would affect concept of fair trial insofar as petitioners are concerned.
Result: Criminal petitions are allowed in part.
ORDER :
Heard Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Neelendra D Gunde for respondent CBI.
2. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:
To allow the application U/sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. dated 09.08.2012 and direction be issued for production of the records set out for purpose of proceedings in Spl. Cbi CC 10/2013, (Old Spl. CC No. 56/2012) on the file of 3rd Addl. District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad, dismissed on 05.02.2013 and since the documents are volumes it is prayed for the call for the records from III Addl. Dist and Sessions Judge, Dharwad CBI Spl.Case CC 10/2013.
In Crl.P.No.101486/2023
Quash the order dated 26/10/2013, passed in Spl. CBI.CC.10/2013 consequently allow the application under Sec.91 R/w 233(3) of CRI P.C. dated 23.08.2013 and direction be issued for production of the records set out for purpose of proceedings in Spl.Cbi.CC.10/2013 on the file of 3rd Additional District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad and that the documents resting at the 3rd Additional District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad are voluminous in nature, this Hon'ble Court may please to pass an order for calling of the records from 3rd Additional District and Session Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad at Dharwad."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioners are facing trial in respect of alleged bank fraud in Special C.C. No.56/2012. Charges have been framed as long back as on 25.07.2010. Trial is under progress. In respect of alleged fraud, there was a departmental enquiry held by the Union Bank of India, Front Road Branch, Bijapur. The enquiry was also further carried out by the Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Belagavi. According to the petitioners there is an inspection report conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain who was the Chief Manager from Mumbai and he has furnished a report.
4. The petitioners submit that in the said report, petitioners have been found to be innocent and therefore they have to confront the same to the investigation officer as defence of accused.
5. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that for the reasons best known the investigation officer, he did not deem it fit to collect the report of the inspection conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain, Chief Manager of Union Bank of India and same would go to the very root of the matter in establishing that the accused are innocent of the offences alleged against them and therefore sought for summoning of the document.
6. An application came to be filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in this regard as attempt made by the petitioners to obtain the said copy through Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act' for short) came to be rejected by the concerned bank. The learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections filed by the prosecution, allowed the application in part and directed to summon 14 documents out of 27 documents that were sought to be summoned.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners accused are before this Court.
8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the report of inspection conducted by Sri.V.K.Jain during the period from 26.10.2004 to 27.10.2004 is utmost necessary to establish the fact that the petitioners are totally innocent and therefore the application filed by the petitioners be allowed.
9. Per contra, Sri.Neelendra D Gunde representing the CBI opposes the petition grounds by contending that the document now sought to be summoned has no bearing whatsoever in respect of merits of the matter. It is only to protract the proceedings further, application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is filed.
10. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.
11. The concept of fair trial encompasses itself that a fair oppor
Section 91 of Cr.P.C. reads as summons to produce document or other thing.
Point of law: Quash of order - it is not upon accused to disprove their case or to show who the guilty is, and the entire Durden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt would be sole....
(1) Documents which were not part of charge-sheet, but seized by investigating agency during investigation of offence, cannot be withheld by prosecution merely on the ground that documents sought to ....
Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established is that the term 'Court' in Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not limited to the Court where the FIR was filed, and the power to seize documents for investigation purposes extend....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's entitlement to seek production of documents under Sec. 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defense, and the expressio....
The accused's right to a fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution to make fair disclosure, and the accused's entitlement to relevant documents collected during the investigation were central leg....
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at the charge framing stage, as the necessity of documents for defense is not relevant at that point.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
