Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 765
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Alagesan & Others
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, Pathirivedu Police Station, Pathirivedu
Crl.R.C.No.211 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On : 03-03-2008
For the Petitioners:S. Ananthanarayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A. Saravanan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
The accused must demonstrate the materiality and relevance of documents for summoning under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without disclosing their defense. Specific averments reflecting the necessity or desirability of the documents are essential.
Headnote:
Section 91 - Summoning of documents - Code of Criminal Procedure - [Section 91] - The court considered the relevance and necessity of summoning documents under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused sought to summon various documents, including case diaries, general diaries, and other records. The court emphasized that the party seeking the summons must demonstrate the materiality of the documents for a just decision in the case. It was noted that the accused need not disclose their defense but must state the circumstances necessitating the summoning of the documents. The court also highlighted the limitations on summoning case diaries and the requirement for specific averments reflecting the necessity or desirability of the documents. The judgment referenced legal provisions and interpretations from previous cases to support the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The accused in a murder case filed an application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon various documents from the respondent police. The respondent opposed the application, contending that it was belated and aimed at delaying the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court dismissed the petition under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that the accused failed to provide justifiable reasons to summon the documents. The court emphasized the necessity for the accused to demonstrate the relevance and materiality of the documents for a just decision in the case.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the accused's entitlement to summon specific documents under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the requirement to demonstrate the necessity and relevance of the documents for the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused must demonstrate the materiality of the documents sought for summoning and emphasized the limitations on summoning case diaries. Specific averments reflecting the necessity or desirability of the documents were deemed essential.
Final Decision: The petition filed under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed, and the court found no illegality or impropriety in the Trial Court's decision.
The revision is filed challenging the order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.1940 of 2007 filed under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioners are the accused in a case of major offence of murder. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners filed an application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon as many as five documents from the respondent.
3. It is relevant to refer to the averment in the petition filed under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the counter filed by the respondent.
4. The petitioners have contended in the aforesaid petition seeking to summon the case diary of the present case, case diary of the counter case, general diary of the present case, the proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the statement of one Geja Thomas, the copy of the accident register of the deceased Thirupathi and the case sheet of A2, A3, A4 and one Parimala that if the aforesaid records are kept in the custody of the respondent police, there is every chance for alteration and manipulation of the records. The custody of the aforesaid documents is just and necessary for trial, it has been further contended by the petitioners in the petition filed by them.
5. In the counter, the respondent police has contended that the petition has been filed at a belated stage. The case of murder which was committed in the year 2006 is still pending disposal. The present petition was filed after examination of the material witnesses. The vexatious petition has been filed just to delay the criminal proceedings with a view to defeat the ends of justice. The petitioners are not entitled to summon the case diaries of the present case and the counter case and the general diary of the present case. As far as the proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Executive Magistrate is concerned, the petitioners would have been supplied with those documents by the Executive Magistrate. As far as the copy of the accident register of the deceased Thirupathi and the wound certificate and case sheet of A2, A3, A4 and Parimala, the same have already been supplied even during the year 2003 under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the committal court. Therefore, the respondent would contend that the petition is not sustainable.
6. The Trial Court, having observed that the petitioners have not put forth any justifiable reason to satisfy the court to summon those documents under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, chose to dismiss the petition filed under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners cannot be directed to disclose the defence set up by them in the petition filed under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only during the course of pendency of trial, the petitioners have filed the petition under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the case diary relating to the counter case, the proceedings initiated earlier by the Executive Magistrate under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accident register copy of the deceased accused and the wound certificate and case sheet of A2, A3, A4 and Parimala are very much relevant for the purpose of strengthening the case of the defence. The petitioners should be given an opportunity to contradict the versions of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution with that of their statements given before the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court has totally ignored the plea of the petitioners and erred in dismissing the petition depriving the right of the petitioners to defend them properly with the documents available with the respondent.
8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would vehemently submit that the trial is pending for
