SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prakash D.Naik, J.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Ajoy Kumar Singh – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2020
Decided On : 28-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Advocate, Dineshtiwari, Advocate, Mikhail Dey, Advocate, Sumit Khanna, Advocate, Rajeev N.Kumar, Advocate, A.R.Patil, Advocate

Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

CBI - Application for Documents - Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C

Fact of the Case:

The CBI filed an FIR against the respondent for amassing disproportionate assets. The respondent sought documents from the CBI under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C before the framing of charges. The Trial Court allowed the application, which was challenged by the CBI.

Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court erred in entertaining the application for documents at the stage of framing charges. The Supreme Court's decision in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi was relied upon to argue that the accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to documents under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C before the framing of charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The accused cannot invoke Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C to seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Application was allowed, and the Trial Court's order directing the CBI to provide documents to the respondent was set aside.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant/Union of India/CBI is aggrieved by order dtd. 6/12/2018 passed by Special Judge (CBI) in CBI Special Case No.100 of 2009 allowing application (Exhibit-213), directing CBI to provide documents to respondent no.1.

2. The FIR was registered by CBI vide RC 08(A)/2007-Mum on 22/2/2007 against respondent no.1 u/s.109 of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the FIR it was alleged that during the period from 16/12/1987 to 31/3/2005 the accusedrespondent no.1 amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.95,32,424.00 in his name and in the name of his wife and relatives. During the course of investigation it was revealed that accused no.1 being public servant had acquired movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs.3,07,97,136.00 in his name and in the name of others during the period from 16/12/1987 to 23/2/2007 against his likely savings of Rs.6,64,441.00. The wife of accused no.1 and his relatives aided and abetted accused no.1 in acquiring the assets. On completing investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. Respondent no.1 filed an application before Trial Court u/s.91 of Cr.P.C seeking directions to CBI to provide documents. Learned Special Judge (CBI) allowed the said application vide order dtd. 6/12/2018 and directed CBI to provide following documents to accused :

    a) Copy of report filed by CBI whilst initiating the procedure for sanction which is at page nos.125 to 339c, which was forwarded by DIG, CBI, ACB on 8/9/2009 to DG Vigilance-cum-CVO CBDT, New Delhi;

      b) Copy of the Forwarding Letter issued by SP, CBI, ACB, Mumbai dtd. 15/10/2009 (at pages 351-352c);

        c) Draft Sanction Order forwarded by SP, CBI, ACB on 15- 10-2009 to DGIT (V) and CVO, CBDT (at pages 359-371/c);

          d) Report of DGIT (V) and CVO, CBDT, upon the CBI report (at pages 17-26/N);

            (e) UO Note, dtd. 4/11/2009 (at pages 408-424/c);

              (f) Letter/OM No.009/ITX/086/6409 dtd. 24/11/2009 issued by CVC (at page 432/C);

                (g) DGIT (V), NZ/SUSP/01/07 and DGIT (V), WZ/CBI/ 04/07 given to CBI by the CVO CBDT.

                  The applicant has challenged the said order before this Court.

                  4. Learned advocate for applicant submitted that order dtd. 6/12/2018 passed by Special Judge is contrary to law. The documents sought by the accused were not part of charge sheet. The application u/s.91 of Cr.P.C seeking documents was not maintainable in law. The Trial Court ought not to have been entertained such application at the stage of framing charge. The documents sought were not part of documents relied upon by prosecution in accordance with Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Such documents which are not part of charge sheet cannot be supplied. The prayer for supply of documents by prosecution at the stage o framing of charge was erroneous. The Trial Court has misconstrued Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has erroneously relied upon the decision in the case of Nitya Dharmananda @ Lenin and another Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and another,(2018)2-SCC-93. The accused was seeking correspondence made by CBI with sanctioning authority which are not relied upon by CBI during trial.

                  5. Learned advocate for applicant has relied upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi,(2005)1-SCC-568.

                  6. Learned advocate for respondent no.1 submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Trial Court directing CBI to hand over documents to respondent no.1. Accused is entitled for such documents. Learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application preferred by respondent no.1. The documents are in custody of CBI.

                    These documents were not deliberately included in the charge sheet. The copy of report filed by CBI while initiating the procedure for sanction were forwarded by DIG, CBI, ACB to DG-Vigilance cum CVO CBDT, New Delhi. Other documents viz forwarding letter issued by SP, CBI, ACB, Mumbai dtd. 15/10/2009, draft Sanction Order forwarded by SP, CBI, ACB dtd. 15/10/2009 to DG

                            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                            1
                            2
                            3
                            4
                            5
                            6
                            7
                            8
                            9
                            10
                            11
                            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                            supreme today icon
                            logo-black

                            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

                            qr

                            Scan Me!

                            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                            whatsapp-icon Back to top