Back
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, G. BASAVARAJA
Mohammed Muddassir Kaleem – Appellant
Versus
National Investigating Agency Ministry of Home Affairs GOI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for production of documents (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments by both parties regarding the evidence (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the application under cr.p.c. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. granting liberty for future applications (Para 9) |
ORDER :
(Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.)
Accused No.20 in Spl.C.C.No.141/2021, on the file of Special court for trial of NIA Cases, (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), challenging the order of dismissing his application filed under section 91 of Cr.P.C., by the special court.
2. We have heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned special counsel for NIA.
3. The petitioner, in his application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. sought a direction to NIA to produce the voluntary statements of the accused persons and statements of 27 police personnel and 24 public witnesses recorded by the state police, the statements of protected witnesses recorded before 3rd November 2020, and video clipping shown to LW-52 while recording his statement. The case in wh
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 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.
The summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage of the trial and is not limited to the defense stage.
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 court upheld that the accused must specify required documents for defense; vague applications do not warrant disclosure of all materials.
At the discharge stage, an accused cannot seek production of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, as the right to produce evidence arises only during the trial phase.
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC to produce documents for defense at the charge framing stage; only prosecution materials are considered.
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
