Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Ajeet Kumar Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CrMMO No. 126/2016
Decided On : 11-05-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Yowan Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper exercise of the court's powers under Section 91 CrPC, emphasizing the need for judicious and judicial discretion in summoning documents and the limitations on the accused's right to request the production of documents.
Headnote:
Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of criminal complaint - Powers of court under Section 91 CrPC - [KEY FACTS] [NO MERIT IN PETITION] [REJECTION OF APPLICATION] [POWERS OF COURT UNDER SECTION 91 CRPC]
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing a criminal complaint and an order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was implicated in a raid conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, despite not being present at the time of the raid and having resigned from the premises over a year prior. The petitioner sought the production of documents through an application under Section 91 CrPC, which was rejected by the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, stating that there was no error in rejecting the application by the trial Court and no prejudice caused to the accused by the rejection of the application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the quashing of the criminal complaint, the rejection of the application under Section 91 CrPC, and the merit of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the powers of the court under Section 91 CrPC are enabling in nature and aimed at ensuring the production of necessary or desirable documents for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings. It highlighted the need for the court to judiciously and judicially exercise its discretion in summoning documents, and that the accused cannot ask for the production of documents as a matter of right. The court also emphasized that the trial Court should not indulge in fishing or roving enquiry while exercising its powers under Section 91 CrPC.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.
Key Facts
- A raid was conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 25.10.2011, but the petitioner was not present, having resigned from the premises over fourteen months prior and joined another company. [18000191800001]
- The petitioner claimed to have sent his resignation via registered post on 9.8.2010 but failed to produce salary slips, a copy of the resignation, or postal receipt as proof. [18000191800001]
- The petitioner was implicated based on a letter from Jasvir Singh Sodhi and sought production of specific documents like his resignation letter and authority letters via an application under Section 91 CrPC. (!) [18000191800001][18000191800002]
- The trial court rejected the Section 91 CrPC application by a detailed order dated 9.11.2015, after charges were already framed based on the complainant's material. (!) [18000191800002]
Issues Raised
- Quashing of the criminal complaint dated 18.8.2012 and the Sessions Trial No. 22-NL-7-2012. (!)
- Challenge to the trial court's order dated 9.11.2015 rejecting the application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents. (!) [18000191800002]
Legal Principles on Section 91 CrPC
- Summoning of documents is a matter of the trial court's discretion, to be exercised properly and judicially after satisfying itself that the document is relevant or bears on the case. (!) (!) (!)
- The court must consider whether production is necessary or desirable for investigation, inquiry, trial, or proceedings; it cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the accused. (!) (!)
- The powers are enabling in nature but limited by the stage of proceedings, necessity, and desirability; the court should avoid fishing or roving enquiries. (!) (!) (!)
- The court's satisfaction regarding the need for documents must be apparent and reasoned; orders must conform to statutory procedure without assumptions. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Applications under Section 91 CrPC may be premature post-charge framing and can be addressed later during witness examination or cross-examination for relevance. [18000191800002]
Court's Findings and Decision
- No merit in the petition under Section 482 CrPC; no error in the trial court's rejection of the Section 91 CrPC application and no prejudice to the accused. [18000191800002][18000191800007]
- The petition was dismissed, and pending applications disposed of. [18000191800008]
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the criminal complaint dated 18.8.2012, resulting into Sessions Trial No. 22-NL-7-2012 and Order dated 9.11.2015 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh.
2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a raid was conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 25.10.2011. Petitioner was not present at the time when raid was conducted. He had resigned. He was not working in the premises for the last fourteen months. He has joined M/s Madhav Biotech Pvt. Ltd. at Solan. According to the averments made in the petition, respondent Firm was manufacturing drugs in the name and licence numbers of other firms like MPPL Pharma, Rudrapur (UK), Excel Biolife Pvt. Ltd. Vadodra, Tanacia Pharma Barnala. No licence was granted to the Firm. Petitioner has sent his resignation through registered post on 9.8.2010 addressed to the Assistant Drug Controller, Licensing-cum-Controlling Authority, Baddi, Near Bus Stand Baddi, District Solan, HP and to the Managing Director M/s Ten Star Industries, for accepting his resignation from 16th August, 2010. He has received his last salary for the month of June 2010. He was implicated on the basis of letter written by Jasvir Singh Sodhi. He has sought from the State Drugs Controller, Baddi, application/letter dated 9.8.2010 sent by him for resignation from M/s Ten Star Industries, authority letters of the endorsement given to M/s Ten Star Industries, Bagbania, Baddi, District Solan, HP. He has resigned from the parent institute and now started working with M/s Madhav Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Solan since August, 2010. He was sending money to his parents and wife at Balia, Uttar Pradesh. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not placed on record his salary slip to prove that he was working with M/s Madhav Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Chambaghat. In case, he had sent resignation, he was supposed to retain a copy of the same. Moreover, if the same has been sent by a registered letter, he should be in possession of postal receipt.
3. Petitioner has moved an application under Section 91 CrPC seeking direction for the production of documents mentioned in para 18 of the application. Application was rejected by the learned trial Court by a detailed order dated 9.11.2015. Charge has already been framed against accused, on the basis of the material placed on record by the complainant. Application is premature. Application can be filed at the time of recoding statements of witnesses and the petitioner can confront him, if found necessary by the Court, by cross-examining the witnesses with respect to relevancy of a particular fact. He can also invoke the provisions of Section 160 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI, Delhi reported in (2000)5 SCC 679, have held that powers conferred under Section 91 are enabling in nature aimed at arming the court or any officer in charge of a police station concerned to enforce and to ensure the production of any document or other things “necessary or desirable” for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code, by issuing a summons or a written order to those in possession of such material. The language of Section 91 would, no doubt indicate the width of the powers to be unlimited but the inbuilt limitation inherent therein takes its colour and shape from the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurately with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsion of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object. The question, at the present stage of the proceedings before the trial Court would be to address itself to find where there is sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. If the accused could produce any reliable material even at that stage, which might totally
