1. Petition challenging rejection of application under Section 94 BNSS seeking summoning of departmental inquiry record in NDPS trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 608
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.
Yashwant Solanki, S/o. Shi Ambalal Solanki - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9056 of 2025
Decided On : 12-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Mathur
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Mathur
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP.
Under Section 94 BNSS and Article 21 of the Constitution, an accused has a right to access materials from parallel departmental proceedings if they are necessary for an effective defence and cross-examination during the evidence stage of a criminal trial.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 94 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to a fair trial - Summoning of documents - Necessity and desirability of production of records from parallel departmental proceedings for the purpose of cross-examination - Accused is entitled to access materials necessary for an effective defence and meaningful cross-examination - Denial of such access would prejudice the fairness of the trial (Paras 15, 16, 24, 25).
(B) Right to Fair Trial - Fundamental right under Article 21 - Includes the right of the accused to have access to materials with exculpatory value or materials necessary to confront prosecution witnesses - Access cannot be denied merely because parallel proceedings might be affected or on purely administrative grounds (Paras 16, 17, 18, 25).
(C) Stage of Trial - Production of documents under Section 94 BNSS - While not typically applicable at the stage of framing charges for producing defence material, once the trial proceeds to the recording of evidence, the Court is competent to summon records if they are necessary or desirable for a just decision of the case (Paras 20, 21, 26).
Facts of the case:
An accused, who was originally a seizure officer in a case registered under the NDPS Act, sought to summon records of parallel departmental proceedings initiated against him regarding the same incident. These records included statements of witnesses and interrogation notes. The trial court rejected the application under Section 94 of the BNSS on the grounds that summoning the record might affect the departmental inquiry. The accused had previously attempted to obtain these documents through the Right to Information Act, but the requests were declined citing confidentiality.
Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in rejecting the application based on administrative considerations. Access to relevant materials in the custody of authorities, which have a direct bearing on the defence, is a facet of a fair trial. Since the trial has reached the stage of recording prosecution evidence, the requested documents are necessary for the petitioner to confront and contradict witnesses during cross-examination.
Issues: Whether the trial court should summon records of parallel departmental proceedings under Section 94 of the BNSS to ensure a fair trial, and whether the potential impact on those proceedings constitutes a valid ground for denial.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India ensures the accused's right to effectively cross-examine witnesses using all relevant material. Section 94 of the BNSS provides the court power to summon documents necessary or desirable for the trial. When the trial is at the evidence stage, materials from parallel proceedings that impact the credibility of witnesses are essential for a just decision. Administrative concerns regarding the progress of departmental inquiries cannot override the fundamental right to an effective defence.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; trial court directed to summon the relevant departmental records.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought departmental record for cross-examination; trial court rejected citing possible delay; State opposed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Denial of relevant departmental statements impairs fair trial; mere administrative concerns cannot justify refusing document production. (Para 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Accused entitled to summon documents under Section 94 BNSS when necessary for effective defence and cross-examination during trial. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 )
5. Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; trial court directed to summon departmental record and retain certified copies. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
6. Can an accused summon departmental inquiry records under Section 94 BNSS during trial for cross-examination?
Yes, if the documents are necessary or desirable for effective defence, the trial court may summon them under Section 94 BNSS. (Para 16 , 18 , 21 , 24 , 25 )
7. Does the right to a fair trial include access to materials in departmental proceedings relevant to the criminal case?
Yes, the right to fair trial under Article 21 includes access to materials with direct bearing on defence and cross-examination. (Para 16 , 24 , 25 )
8. Can a trial court refuse to summon documents merely because it may delay parallel departmental proceedings?
No, such an administrative consideration is not a valid ground to curtail the accused's right to effective defence. (Para 17 , 25 )
9. At what stage can an accused invoke Section 94 BNSS to produce documents?
Once trial has commenced and prosecution evidence is being recorded, the accused may invoke Section 94 to summon relevant documents. (Para 21 , 26 )
10. What is the scope of 'necessary or desirable' under Section 94 BNSS?
The court must assess necessity or desirability with reference to the stage and purpose, disallowing roving or fishing inquiries. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
Order :
BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court No.1, whereby the application filed under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been rejected.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that an FIR No.131/2023 was registered at Police Station Mandfiya, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Section 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was the seizure officer, however, he has subsequently been arraigned as an accused on the allegation that he was part of the conspiracy. After investigation, challan was filed against him and matter is pending for prosecution evidence before the learned trial court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the incident regarding which the FIR was registered a compliant was submitted by certain individuals, namely Smt. Rekha Khatik and Shri Naresh Khatik, to the office of the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, making serious allegations regarding irregularities, falsification and procedural lapses in the seizure and investigation process undertaken by the Mandfiya Police Station officials. Based upon the said complaint, the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, initiated a departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 against the members of the seizure team, including the petitioner.
4. The said departmental inquiry is being conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell, Udaipur, and in the inquiry statements of all the seizure officers, members of the patrol team, and witnesses, as well as interrogation notes of the accused persons were recorded. It is further submitted that these documents and statements are directly connected to the same incident forming the basis of the present NDPS prosecution now pending before the learned trial court.
5. In view thereof, an application was preferred by the petitioner before the learned trial Court under section 94 of the BNSS, seeking summoning of the record of the departmental proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to confront the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application without assigning any cogent or convincing reasons and on wholly untenable grounds. It is argued that the only ground assigned by the trial Court for rejection of the application is that summoning of the departmental record may affect the departmental inquiry. According to learned counsel, such a ground is legally unsustainable, as the mere possibility of departmental proceedings being affected cannot be a valid reason to deny the petitioner an effective opportunity to defend himself in a criminal trial.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a valuable right to defend himself and is entitled to a full and fair opportunity to do so. Since the statements of the witnesses have already been recorded in the departmental proceedings, the same are essential for the purpose of confronting the witnesses during cross-examination.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had also sought copies of the said statements from the concerned department under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, prior to filing the application before the trial court, however, the same were declined citing confidentiality. In the absence of such documents, and in view of the rejection of the application by the trial Court, the petitioner would be rendered effectively defenceless and would be unable to properly put forth his defence in the criminal case.
9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2022 INSC 1177 and State of Orissa v
