ORDER: The above criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner/ accused against the order passed by the Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai in an application filed by the petitioner under Sec.91 of Crl.P.C. to summon the documents.

2. The petitioner has categorically stated in his petition before the trial Court to summon the below mentioned documents:

"(a) Entire file S4/108/99 Bonds available with Additional Commissioner (Bonds) Customs Department, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakam, Chennai-600 027 - with Bill of Entry No. 17658 dated 19.8.1999, Original and duplicate both on the covering letter under Sec. 139 of Crl.P.C.

(b) The clearance particulars of voice over I.P., P.C. cord

Bond No. 8768, dated 25.8.1999.

Bill of Entry No. 17658 dated 19.8.1999

AWB/Bill of lading No. and date:

MAWB: 618-5942553

MAWB: 36093326/11.8.1999".

These particulars are available with the Deputy Manager, International Airport Authority of India, Air Cargo Complex (Imports), Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027."

3. It is stated by the petitioner in his petition that the said documents are necessary to put forth his case and to prove his innocence.

4. The respondent/CBI has filed counter before the Court below stating that one Kathiresan, DSP was examined as P.W. 6 and N.V. Udayakumar, Assistant Commissioner (bonds) was examined as P.W. 7 and both the witnesses were not connected with the nature of documents mentioned in the said petition. It is also averred in the counter that the reason and purpose for production of the said documents were not mentioned in the petition.

5. After affording opportunity to both sides, the learned trial Judge held that no reason or purposes has been mentioned by the petitioner as to why he requires the production of documents detailed in the petition. Mere statement that the documents are necessary for establishing the innocence of the accused would not be sufficient. It is also mentioned in the order that P.W.6 is an officer who had participated in the trap proceedings conducted by the prosecution and therefore he would not have any knowledge about the nature of the documents mentioned in the petition. P.W.7, Assistant Commissioner, Administration (Bonds and Customs), Chennai also would not have any personal knowledge about the nature of the documents stated in the petition. It is further mentioned in the order that with regard to file S4/108/99 (bonds) is concerned, a part of the records was marked as Ex.P-9 series consisting of pages 1 to 69 that similarly bill of entry No. 17658 dated 19.8.1999 marked as Ex.P-3 and the remaining part of the documents in both the items are not necessary. Ultimately, the learned Special Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.

6. Mr. Asokan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the documents already marked namely Exs.P-9 and P-3 are sufficient for the purpose of the case. Indeed, the entire documents mentioned in both the items are required to disprove the charges against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further argued that the said documents are absolutely necessary to put forth the case of the petitioner/accused that the consignment in dispute has already been cleared and there was no necessity for the bond to be executed on 29.8.1999 as alleged by the prosecution. The learned senior counsel further argued that while cross-examining P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, the petitioner has raised the said defence as such the averment that the petitioner has not spelt out the reason as to how the said documents are relevant for the case is not correct.

7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Ranganathan appearing for the respondent/ CBI submitted that under Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C. whenever the Court considers it necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial may issue summons for production of the documents. Thus, in order to make the provisions of Sec. 91 of Crl.P.C., applicable, the documents must be cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document