Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bharat P.Deshpande, J.
Ravi Laxman Naik - Appellant
Versus
Police Inspector - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 595 of 2023(F)
Decided On : 20-12-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 91 OF CrPC - CrPC Sec. 91 - The court discussed the powers under Sec. 91 of the CrPC, which allows a court or police officer to summon documents deemed necessary for investigation or trial. The court emphasized that the necessity and desirability of such documents must be assessed based on the stage of proceedings. It concluded that the accused cannot invoke Sec. 91 to produce documents for defense before charges are framed, as this is not relevant at that stage. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the application, reinforcing the principle that the accused's right to seek document production arises only during the defense stage.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for drug possession, and he filed an application under Sec. 91 of the CrPC to obtain mobile tower locations of the raiding party to prove his innocence. The application was rejected by the Special Court, leading to this challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Sec. 91 was improperly filed at the stage of framing charges. It reiterated that the accused's right to seek document production arises only during the defense stage, and the necessity of such documents must be evaluated in the context of the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the accused can invoke Sec. 91 of the CrPC to obtain documents for his defense before charges are framed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the powers under Sec. 91 of the CrPC are limited to the stage of trial or defense, and the accused cannot seek document production at the stage of framing charges. The necessity and desirability of documents must be assessed based on the stage of proceedings.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petition, upholding the trial court's order that denied the application under Sec. 91 of the CrPC.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
BHARAT P.DESHAPANDE, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner/accused filed an application under Sec. 91 of CrPC before the Special Criminal Court (NDPS) in Case No.29 of 2023 at the stage when the matter was fixed for arguments for framing of charge. The said application was rejected by the learned Special Court vide order dtd. 15/07/2023, which is under challenge.
3. Heard Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State.
4. Mr. De Sa would submit that on 04/11/2022 the petitioner was allegedly taken away from his home and was booked under FIR No.104/2022 by the Crime Branch Police Station Ribander on the allegations that during house search, Ganja weighing 5.042kgs, Charas weighing 1.008kgs, cultivated cannabis plants having flowering and fruiting tops substance suspected to be Ganja weighing 5.350kgs were recovered. He would submit that no panchanama of search and seizure was carried out at the house of the petitioner and the entire procedure was conducted at the police station. He would submit that the mobile phone locations of the raiding party members are required to be preserved and called for the purpose of showing that the raiding party was not present at the house of the petitioner during the alleged period of the entire panchanama. He submits that the petitioner moved such application at the time of bail which was rejected vide order dtd. 11/01/2023.
5. Mr. De Sa then would submit that the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint on 18/11/2022 with Mapusa Police Station against the Police Officer claiming therein that they entered the house and took away the petitioner forcibly by fabricating some documents and evidence. He then would submit that another application was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 91 of CrPC dtd. 27/06/2023 which was rejected by the Special Court vide the impugned order dtd. 15/07/2023.
6. Mr. De Sa by placing reliance in the case of Suresh Kumar v/s. Union of India [2015 0 AllMR (Cri) SC 4111] and Paramjit Kaur v/s. State of Haryana [CRR No.2605 of 2023 (O and M) decided on 04/12/2023 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, would submit that details of CDR and SDR of the mobile phones of the raiding party are absolutely necessary to establish that the raiding party members were not present at the time of the panchanama in the house of the petitioner. He submits that in order to have fair investigation and trial, it is the duty of the Court to call for such records. He submits that the application was filed only because there is time limit for preservation of CDR and SDR by the service provider. After a lapse of one year from the date of alleged panchanama, even the service providers would not be in a position of furnishing such details.
7. Mr De Sa would then submits that no prejudice is going to cause to the prosecution if such details are called and kept with the Court.
8. Per contra, Mr. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused is not having any right to produce any document or rely upon any document beyond the charge sheet and the documents attached by the Investigating Agency, at the time when the matter is fixed for arguments before charge or even at the time of bail. He would submit that the right of the accused could be exercised only when the matter is fixed for defence. At that stage the accused may apply to the Court under Sec. 91 of CrPC for production of documents in his defence.
9. Mr. Faldessai would submit that first application under Sec. 91 of CrPC was filed along with the bail application which was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dtd. 11/01/2023. The accused did not challenge such order and therefore such order is final and binding.
10. Mr. Faldessai would then submit that the application filed on 27/06/2023 under Sec. 91 of CrPC
The accused does not have the right to invoke Sec. 91 of the CrPC for document production at the stage of framing charges; such rights are reserved for the defense stage of the trial.
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC to produce documents for defense at the charge framing stage; only prosecution materials are considered.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court can only consider material produced by the prosecution. The accused cannot invoke Section 91 to prove innocence, unless material of sterling quality has b....
(1) Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence.(2) Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at instance of accused would lie even a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accused persons are entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC after the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court has the jurisdiction to direc....
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....
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.
(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 ....
The right to seek document production under Section 91 of CrPC arises only at the defense stage, not during pre-charge proceedings.
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....
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
