Back
KULDEEP MATHUR
Punit Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Kuldeep Mathur, J.) :
The instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred to challenge the impugned order dated 16.07.2022 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial court’), rejecting the application filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 91 of Cr. P.C. for summoning the documents.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing trial for the offences under Sections 7 , 13(1)(2) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before learned trial court. The trial court has framed the charges and the case is pending before trial court for recording the prosecution evidence. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were members of a team which visited Sardarshahar for inspection of Bhanwarlal Dungar Ayurveda Vishwa Bharti College. The inspecting team demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- as illegal gratification for giving a favourable report to the college. On receiving complaints, on 17.04.2017, competent police officials laid a trap and accused-petitioners were arrested with illegal gratification.
3. By way of filing an applicatio
The power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked when the relevancy and necessity or desirability of the documents are demonstrated by the accused.
Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.
Point of law: Quash of order - it is not upon accused to disprove their case or to show who the guilty is, and the entire Durden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt would be sole....
Prosecution must supply list of unrelied-upon documents to accused under Section 91 CrPC for fair trial, even pre-defence stage if necessary, overriding confidentiality claims for public documents.
The summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage of the trial and is not limited to the defense stage.
The court reinforced that requests for documents must align with relevancy as defined in prior court orders, cautioning against abusing the judicial process.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion under Section 91 CrPC, affirming that only necessary documents for a just decision should be summoned.
If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination,....
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
