2016 Supreme(HP) 599
RAJIV SHARMA
Ajeet Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Yowan Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State
Judgement Key Points
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]
JUDGMENT :
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,
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
