Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Kashyap Kumar Patel & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRMP No. 292 of 2020
Decided On : 03-02-2020
Mr. Sidharth Shukla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rahul Jha, Government Advocate, for the Respondent
The accused does not have the right to invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to produce documents to prove their innocence at the stage of framing the charge.
Headnote:
Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Preliminary Report - 17, 20, 40, 40(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 21(12)/177, 105/177, 191/177, 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - The court discussed the scope and ambit of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and its application to the production of documents at different stages of proceedings. The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Debendra Nath Padhi's case and subsequent cases to conclude that the accused does not have the right to invoke Section 91 to produce documents to prove their innocence at the stage of framing the charge.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application to summon the preliminary report prepared by the Border Security Force, claiming it as necessary for their defense in a criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' request to summon the preliminary report was not justified under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and its application to the production of documents for the defense at the stage of framing the charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Debendra Nath Padhi's case and subsequent cases to conclude that the accused does not have the right to invoke Section 91 to produce documents to prove their innocence at the stage of framing the charge.
Final Decision: The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners herein challenge the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 06/01/2020 by which learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act) has rejected petitioners'' application for summoning to produce the preliminary report dated 26/05/2017 prepared by the Border Security Force (BSF).
2. Mr. Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the document claimed by the petitioners i.e. preliminary report submitted by the Border Security Force on 26/05/2017 is extremely necessary for the just and proper disposal of the criminal case filed against the petitioners as they have already been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 17, 20, 40 and 40(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with Sections 21(12)/177, 105/177, 191/177, 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and they are being tried for the aforesaid offences by the special Court. The said document is of sterling quality which can prove that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question, therefore, it needs to be produced before the Court before framing of charge against the present petitioners in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568. He further relies upon Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and submits that the document so claimed by the petitioners is absolutely necessary to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and accordingly, it may be directed to summon the respondent in order to produce the said document.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record carefully.
4. Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. provides 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.''
5. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the power to issue a summons for the production of a document or a thing is to be exercised whenever the Court considers that its production is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. In other words, the power is available to the Court at every stage of proceedings contemplated under the Code. It has to be noticed that this power is available not only to the Court but also to any officerin charge of a police station and the only condition for the exercise of the power is that the production of the document or the thing should be necessary or desirable for purposes of the proceedings and the only restriction is that contained under subsection (3) which provides that the provisions of the Section shall not affect Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act or apply to articles in the custody of the Postal or Telegraph authorities.
6. The Supreme Court has an occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Section 91 of the CrPC in a threeBench judgment in Debendra Nath Padhi'
