Back
V. SRISHANANDA
Aravind Sankar Navalgund – Appellant
Versus
State By Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
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,
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
