IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 be summoned are not part of charge-sheet.
(2) If trial against accused is not concluded within reasonable time, it amounts to violation of right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of constitution of India.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

This revision is directed against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by Special Court (NDPS), Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha, in Special (NDPS) Case No.3/2018 rejecting the applications at Exhs:58 and 63 filed by the applicant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for short) for summoning and production of documents which were not part of the chargesheet case papers.

2. The applicant is facing trial for the charges of Sections 120(b), 117, 167, 204, 343, 465, 471 read with Section 120(b) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 17, 18, 21, 27(a), 29, 58(1) and 58(2) of the NDPS Act.

3. On 02.11.2018, chargesheet for the aforesaid offences being filed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly, case was registered as Special (NDPS) Case No.3/2018. The applicant preferred two applications at Exhs:58 and 63 for summoning and production of certain documents to defend his case, as according to him, the documents are relevant and necessary for the fair trial.

4. The trial Court vide its orders dated 18.03.2021, dismissed both the applications observing that, the applicant has not established that the documents sought are “necessary and desirable” for the just decision of the case. The Special Court further observed that it has been filed with a view to delay the trial proceedings. The trial Court further noted that pursuant to the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, the documents sought were supplied to the applicant and further recorded that the documents sought have no relevance to the facts of the present case. However, the trial Court while dismissing both the applications observed that, the applicant has liberty to revive his claim at appropriate stage.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 18.03.2021, the applicant has come up before this Court by way of present revision application.

6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Saurin Shah, for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Mitesh Amin, assisted by learned AGP Mrs. Krina Calla, for the respondent State.

7. Mr. Saurin Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, strenuously urged that the order impugned passed by the learned Special Judge is de hors the mandate of Section 91 of the Code, which requires interference by this Court. Placing reliance on the decision of V.K. Shasikala Vs. State [(2012) 9 SCC 771], it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused has right to fair trial and entitled to all the documents, not relied upon by the Investigating Agency and not forming the part of the chargesheet. In this context, on the factual aspects, he would contend that the investigating officer while taking over investigation as per direction of Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 03.04.2018 had received investigation papers of “A” Summary Report vide Exh:11 to Exh:279 as well as case diary consisting pages 1 to 42, case diary consisting pages 1 to 29 and 16 documents attached with the said case diary; that the IO while submitting the chargesheet did not place majority of exhibits which were forming part of A Summary Report and same came to be produced in a sealed cover before the learned Special Judge and therefore, vide Exh:58 application was tendered claiming the documents. However, the learned Special Judge overlooked the facts of “A” Summary and observed that, the applicant had made similar demand by making application before the High Court and accordingly, documents were supplied to him. Thus, the findings are completely incorrect and contrary to record as the applicant did not have received any such documents as enumerated in the application; that while submitting the chargesheet, the IO has relied upon the FSL report of C.R.Nos.51/1996 and 54/1996 registered with Aagthala Police Station, however, he did not submit all the relevant doducments of both the aforesaid crimes like copy of the FIR, relevant statements and panchnama and therefore, the applicant has prayed the documen