An Investigating Officer's request for document production must be limited to documents in the person's possession, emphasizing legal cooperation in serious investigations like drug trafficking.

ORDER :

C.S. DIAS, J.

Can an Investigating Officer direct a statutory authority to produce a document or thing for the purpose of investigation of a crime?

2. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge–II, Thiruvananthapuram, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs of the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The petitioner was served with Annexure A1 order passed under Section 94 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘ BNSS ’, in short), directing him to furnish the details of the customs officers who were on duty in the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 09.07.2025 between 06.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m., including their designation, official addresses and mobile numbers. The petitioner states that he is not obliged to collect, collate and provide information to the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner was neither a party to the application nor afforded an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Annexure A2 application to review the Annexure A1 order. However, by Annexure A4 order, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that a criminal court does not have the power to review its own order. Under of the (corresponding to Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ), a witness can only be directed to produce a document or thing that is in his possession or control. Hence, Annexures A1 and A4 orders may be set aside.

4. I have heard Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contention in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (‘Crl.M.C.’, in short). He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Kerala Institute of Medical Science (KIMS) v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1838] and that of the High Court of Delhi in CBI v. I M Quddusi [2026 DHC 226] to fortify his contention that the Court must be satisfied that the production of a document or thing is for the purpose of investigation, enquiry or trial, and that the document or thing should be in the possession of the person. He submits that, by A1 and A4 orders, the Court has directed the petitioner to collect, collate and provide information, which is impermissible in law.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. She submits that the above crime has been registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 22 (C), 23(C), 27 (A) and 8 read with Section 27 (B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’, for brevity). According to her, the accused Nos. 1 to 6 had hatched a conspiracy to procure, smuggle, and commercially sell methamphetamine in the country. The contraband was transported from Muscat to Thiruvananthapuram on Air India Express Flight IX-550, which landed in Thiruvananthapuram on 09.07.2025 at 6.20 p.m. It was for the purpose of investigation of the crime that the 2^nd respondent had issued letters dated 06.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 to the petitioner. However, the petitioner remained mute and did not send any reply, which in turn compelled the 2^nd respondent to file Annexure A3 application before the above Court. The above Court has rightly allowed the application and directed the petitioner to furnish the details. Under Section 94 of the BNSS and Section 67 (b) of the NDPS Act, the 2^nd respondent is empowered to seek details from any person or authority for the purpose of investigation of a cri