Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Awdhesh Kumar Suman – Appellant
Versus
Anil Dixit, Son Of Shri V.N. Dikshit – Respondent
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 wit
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.
Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.
The Court ruled that documents not relied upon by the prosecution during the charge framing stage are not to be disclosed to the accused; issues related to the validity of prosecution Sanction arise ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's entitlement to seek production of documents under Sec. 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defense, and the expressio....
The court upheld that the accused must specify required documents for defense; vague applications do not warrant disclosure of all materials.
The defense cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge to avoid a mini trial, and the documents sought to be relied upon by the accused persons could only be considered after trial.
(1) Documents which were not part of charge-sheet, but seized by investigating agency during investigation of offence, cannot be withheld by prosecution merely on the ground that documents sought to ....
The discretion to allow additional documents under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with caution, and filing of additional documents is a concession to be used sparingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
