The judgment emphasizes the discretionary nature of summoning documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and the protection of privileged documents and official communications under Sections 123 & 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The petitioner has filed the above revision seeking to set aside the order passed by the Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai in Crl.MP No. 13 of 2002 in C.C. No. 3 of 1999 dismissing the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon documents.

2. Heard both sides. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 3 of 1999 for the offence under Section 120-B r/w. Section 409, 420, 477-A IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

3. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon the document namely "Note to Chairman and Managing Director' dated 01-06-1998 regarding the meeting of the Chief Vigilance Committee (CVC) on 29-05-1998 to discuss the prosecution case by the Chief Vigilance Officer. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court, hence this revision.

4. Mr. Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the document summoned is vital to demolish the evidence of PW1, who has accorded sanction; that the trial court failed to see that the sanction is a sacrosanct act, which was accorded without application of mind by PW1; that denial of suggestion by PW1 pertaining to the document is not a sufficient reason for dismissing the application; that the respondent/CBI has not pleaded that production of the said document would cause breach of public interest; that the document is not a privilege document and that the court below erroneously dismissed the application misconstruing the provisions of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. Mr. Renganathan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases appearing for the respondent argued that the note sheet sought to be summoned are privileged and confidential document, which cannot be summoned; that PW1 is neither the author of the document nor receipt of it as such he is not competent to speak about the same; that the document is a communication between two officers, which is nothing but an official communication as defined under Section 124 of Indian Evidence Act as such it cannot be compelled to be produced and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

6. The trial court, after hearing both sides held that the document in dispute is an official communication between the officials concerned, hence it is privileged document and it cannot be summoned. The trial court further found that though the prosecution has not clearly stated in their counter as to in what manner the public interest would be affected by disclosure of the document, however held that the document is confidential in nature as defined under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Special Judge has also relied on a decision reported by this Court in 2001-2-Law Weekly (Criminal) Page 643 (K. Sivanandam Vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-corruption Branch, Chennai – 6) in support of his conclusion.

7. Now, we look into the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act:-

"Section 91 of Cr.P.C. - Summons to Produce document or other thing:-

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this code by or before such Court or Officer, such Court may issue a summon, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this Section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in t