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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.07.2022, passed in R.C. 12(A)/2014-R by the learned AJC-XVIII- cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby the petition filed by the opposite party under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction for supply of documents have been allowed.

3. The FIR was registered on 31.10.2014 against the different accused persons alleging therein that during the period 2010 to 2014 the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other and awarded the consultancy work for preparation of master plan and comprehensive architectural building, designing and engineering design for the permanent campus of Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi on the basis of fake documents and making fraudulent payments to the said firms thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 1,92,08,774/-.

4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI submits that after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted under Sections 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He next submits that the petitioner herein has filed a petition for supply of certain documents, which was allowed by the learned court by order dated 21.09.2019. He then submits that thereafter the petitioner-CBI has filed the compliance affidavit of that order disclosing the reasons that how certain documents have not been supplied to the opposite party. He further submits that thereafter further petition was filed by the sole opposite party on 27.05.2022, whereby, the learned court by the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 has been pleased to pass the order to supply the documents, sought to be desired by the sole opposite party. He also submits that the learned court has erred in passing the said order, as the said documents are not available with the CBI or some of the documents are confidential in nature. He further submits that even the prosecution witnesses have not been started to be examined as yet and when the opposite party will reach the stage of his defence, he is having the right to invoke Section 91 read with Section 242 of the Cr.P.C., as the case is arising before the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI relied in the case of Sarla Gupta & Anr. Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2025) 7 SCC 626 and by way of referring Paras-68.3 to 68.8, he submits that at the stage of defence of the opposite party only, the required documents can be procured.

6. He also submits that the second judgment in the case of Manoj & Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353 and in light of para-205 of the said judgment, the said stage has not come as yet.

7. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI on the above grounds submits that the impugned order of the learned court may kindly be set aside.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has not committed any error, as in spite of several orders, passed by the learned court, the CBI has not complied the s