The right to seek document production under Section 91 of CrPC arises only at the defense stage, not during pre-charge proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) seeking to set aside the impugned orders dated 20.12.2022 and 16.01.2023 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (P.C. Act), CBI-08, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi arising out of the RC 04(A)2017/AC-III/CBI/New Delhi titled as “CBI vs. Paritosh Kumar Praveen & Others” to the extent that the Ld. Special Judge ordered to supply copies of request letters/communication sent by the petitioner to Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) for call interception.

BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT PETITION

2. On 05.04.2017, the petitioner/Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI” registered a case bearing No. RC-04(A)2017/AC-III/CBI/New Delhi for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) r/w section 7,12,13(2) r/w l3(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, l988 (“PC Act, 1988”) against the respondents and other accused.

3. After completion of investigation, CBI filed the chargesheet against the respondents and other co-accused on 26.02.2021 before the concerned Court for commission of offences punishable under section 120-B of IPC r/w Section 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. On l1.03.2022, cognizance of the above mentioned offences were taken by the Ld. Special Judge and accordingly all the accused including respondents were summoned.

4. On 02.05.2022 in compliance of provisions of section 207 CrPC, copies of all the relied upon documents/statements of witnesses were supplied to the accused including respondents herein.

5. Thereafter on 24.05.2022, respondents herein filed two separate applications under Section 91 of CrPC seeking the same directions:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court to give direction to the CBI to supply the above- mentioned applications/request letters to the applicant; or pass any other order(s) deems fit in the present facts and circumstances.”

6. The request letters mentioned above are the letters/communications sent by the CBI to MHA for interception of calls.

7. Reply to the said applications were filed by the CBI wherein it was stated that the application/request letter to the MHA for seeking permission to put the phone on surveillance is not a relied upon documents, so its copy cannot be provided. Further, the orders (24.10.2016, 20.12.2016 and 13.02.2017) of the Union Home Secretary allowing the surveillance of the mobile phone were already supplied.

8. It was further stated that the copies of intercepted calls were also supplied to the accused/respondents. The interception of calls were as per provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (“Act of 1885”) and rules made thereunder, hence there is no violation of any right to privacy of the respondents. The request letter contains details of other numbers for surveillance which is unconnected with the present matter, hence the copy of the same cannot be provided to the respondents. Lastly, the maintainability of these applications at pre- charge stage was also raised on the ground that such an application can be moved only at defence evidence stage.

9. Ld. Special Judge after considering the submissions, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2022 directed the CBI to supply the copies of request letters/communications sent by it to MHA upon which the MHA had passed the orders dated 24.10.2016, 20.12.2016 and 13.02.2017. The operative paras of the impugned order reads as under:-

“9) In order to support first application bearing no. M- 67/22 for giving directi