The court established that applications to summon evidence must be granted unless proven to be for vexation or delay, affirming the right to substantiate a defense with relevant documentation.

ORDER :

(VENKATESH NAIK T., J.)

Crl.P.No.101050/2023 is filed by the petitioners/accused to quash the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, on an application filed under Section 91 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) in S.C.No.68/2010, whereas Crl.P.No.102901/2023 is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, on an application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C., in S.C.No.68/2010 and consequently, to allow the application filed under Section 233(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution cases are as under:

Crl.P.No.101050/2023

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners/accused persons had filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., to summon the Director of Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore, to produce the answer sheets of the deceased-Shilpa, who wrote in the Kannada language, and studied II PUC at Government Girls Pre-University College, Ballari, in the year 2004. The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, holding that since the Investigating Officer collected Exs.P.41 to P.43 and sent to them for expert opinion and a Scientific Officer, after conducting hand writing examination, gave a detailed report vide Ex.P.68. Thus, it would not be necessary to summon the PU Board to produce the answer sheets of deceased-Shilpa. Hence, petitioners have filed this petition.

Crl.P.No.102901/2023

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner to summon the witness with a direction to the produce the attendance Register of accused No.3-by name Angadi Shankar, who was working as Senior Manager, H.R and Admin in November 2008, in JSW Energy (Rathnagiri) Limited. However, the trial Court rejected the said application, on the ground that the accused sought attendance register of witness.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and leaned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

5. Sofar as Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., is concerned, the Court may summon to produce documents and other things. The contents of the Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., is reads as under:

“91. Summons to produce document or other thing.-(1) 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 a 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, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-

(a) to affect, sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.”

6. Whereas, in the instant case, the accused persons sought to summon the Director of the Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore, to produce the answer sheets of the deceased-Shilpa, who wrote in the Kannada language and studied II PUC, at Government Girls Pre-University College, Ballari, in the year 2004. Whereas, the Investigatin