Confidential official documents cannot be summoned.

The impugned order dated 18-8-1998 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 158 of 1998 in C.C. No. 227 of 1997 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused in the case for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, requesting for summoning of the documents under section 91, Cr.P.C. is under the challenge before this Court in this Revision.

2. The short facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision, are summarised as follows :-

"The petitioner was working as Junior Telecom Officer, Flower Bazaar External IV Exchange, Madras Telephones. He was arrested in the above case for having allegedly received a bribe of Rs. 500/-. The C.B.I., the respondent after finishing investigation and on obtaining sanction, filed the case before the trial Court, which was taken on file in C.C. No. 227/97 for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. P.W. 1, Mrs. Kalavathy, the Deputy General Manager, who granted sanction for prosecution, was examined on 6-7-1998 before the trial Court. Through her Ex. P1 sanction order was marked. During the course of cross examination, it was pointed out to the witness that the sanction order does not contain the date on which the said order was passed. After the cross-examination was over, on the same day, with the permission of the Court she was examined further in chief, through whom Ex. P2, which is a covering letter dated 7-11-1996 sent by P.W. 1 to the Director of Vigilance along with the sanction (order) Ex. P1, was marked. On 10-7-1998 the petitioner/accused filed an application under section 91, Cr.P.C. stating that in Ex. P2, the covering letter sent by P.W. 1, the sanctioning authority to the Director of Vigilance, there is a reference about the letter of Director of Vigilance and that copy must be summoned to the Court. In the same petition, he also sought to summon the Advice Note Register for the months of June and July, 1996 in order to recall again P.W. 1 to effectively cross-examine her. This petition was resisted by the respondent through Public Prosecutor by filing a counter. It is stated in the counter that Ex. P2, the covering letter sent by P.W. 1 to the Director of Vigilance along with the sanction order was marked only to show the date of sanction and that, therefore, the letter written by the Director to P.W. 1 does not have any relevance so as to cross-examine P.W. 1, further. It is also sated in the counter that these documents are only official communication between the Officers of different sections and the petitioner is not the author or receiver of these documents and as such, the petition was filed by the accused in order to protract the proceedings of the case. After considering the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing on either side, the trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that those documents referred to in the petition are not relevant and as such, the summoning of those documents is not called for."

3. While attacking the said order, the counsel for the petitioner reiterating the submissions made before the trial Court, would state that in order to give a fair and free opportunity to the accused to defend the case, the trial Court ought to have summoned those documents which are of vital and inescapable requirement for the defence in order to disprove the case of prosecution.

4. The counsel for the respondent, while referring the reasonings in the impugned order, also would contend that these documents sought to be summoned are all official communication between the officers concerned and they shall not be compelled to disclose the communication, as it is covered under section 124 of the Evidence Act.

5. I have carefully considered the contentions urged on either side.

6. P.W. 1, who granted the sanction, was examined on 6-7-1998. When the question was put to P.W. 1 in the cro