Honble CHAUHAN, J.–Accused of offence under Section 376 (g) IPC, wanting to defend his liberty and honor, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for seeking the production of certain documents which were available with the police, but which the prosecution chose not to file with the charge sheet However, vide order dated 22.8.05, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before us.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that on 13.9.04, the prosecutrixs father lodged a report a Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur. However, in the said report he did not claim any fact with regard to sexual exploitation of his daughter, Miss. Reena Sharma by the accused petitioner and by others. Subsequently, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others before the Mahila Thana and the Police Station, Murlipura, wherein she alleged sexual exploitation by them. On the basis of the complaint lodged at Police Station Murlipura, a formal FIR, FIR No. 333/2004, was registered for offences under Sections 342, 376 (g), 323, and 328 IPC against the petitioner and others. Moreover, during the course of investigation, on information furnished by the accused petitioner, the police had recovered certain photos, love letters between the prosecutrix and the accused petitioner, some STD bill slips and a ledger book. In fact, the police had not only made a recovery memo of the said recovery, but had also prepared a site plan of the place of recovery. Thus, the police had in its possession the earlier report lodged by the prosecutrixs father, the report lodged by the prosecutrix at Mahila Thana, and the documents, which were recovered at the petitioners instance. However, when the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner, it did not submit these documents along with the said charge sheet. In case these documents were produced, they would probablize the case of the accused that the prosecution had fabricated a case against him. Since these documents, which were in the custody of the police, were required by the defense, the accused petitioner moved an application under Section 91 under the Criminal Procedure Code, (henceforth to be referred to as the Code, for short) praying that the prosecution be directed to produce these documents. However, vide order dated 22.8.05, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said application. Hence, the petition before us.

(3). Mr. G.C. Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the investigating agency is duty bound to carry out an impartial investigation. While filing the charge sheet, the investigating agency must disclose all the facts discovered by them, during the course of investigation, to the Trial Court. The prosecution cannot be permitted to place a one sided story before the Trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner is entitled to receive those documents which are in his favour, but which are being withheld by the prosecution. He further argued that these documents are needed for confronting the prosecutrix father when he enters the witness box. Thus, these documents, which would throw light on the case, are ``necessary or desirable for the purpose of the trial. According to the learned counsel, without realizing the scope and ambit of Section 91 of the Code, without appreciating the inter-relationship between Section 91 and Section 173 of the Code, the learned Trial Court has mechanically rejected the application under Section 91 of the Code.

(4). On the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, the Learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the Petitioner is not so much interested in getting the documents, as in getting the trial prolonged. Further, the petitioner can always seek these documents when he is about to enter his defense. Further, since the prosecutrix has not mentioned the existence of these documents, the learned Trial Court was justified in passin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document