The court emphasized the necessity and desirability of producing documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and the absolute discretion of the court in summoning and production of documents.

1. The petition filed by the petitioner/A1 seeking direction of this court to direct the respondent to produce the request/report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai-28 to the Sanction Authority in RC.No.198/2010/TNEB/CC-IV, dated 28.07.2010 in C.C.No.9/2011 pending Trial on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the above referred C.C. No. 9 of 2011 initiated as against the petitioner on the allegations for the purpose to revoking the Disciplinary Proceedings demanded an amount through A2 and proceeded without any basis and particularly the Sanction was obtained by giving false information and suppressing the real particulars and records from the purview of the Sanctioning Authority. The sanction itself was not proper as the competent authority is the Board and not an individual. In the given situation, the sanctioned obtained based on the request/report referred therein but that was not produced before the trial court.

3. The sanction was given on 28.06.2011 based on the alleged report vide RC.No.198/2010/TNEB /CC-IV, dated 28.07.2010. The said reference in the said sanctioned letter gives rise to many doubts about the placing of complete records. Further, it is more than a year after the improper sanction was granted to prosecute the case, the said reference dated 28.07.2010 may not be proper report for a reason that at that point of time even the investigation was not completed and no records was made available for the purpose of appraising the authority to take stock of the entire situation.

4. The petitioner herein took an endeavour to procure the referred request letter before the trial court by filing the petition in Crl.MP.No.446/2017 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., while taking for consideration, the trial court refused to direct the prosecution to produce the alleged request vide RC.No.198/2010/TNEB/CC-IV, dated 28.07.2010 on the reason that the prosecution claimed the same as the official communication and the same cannot be produced before the court, though the other two documents were allowed to be produced before the court based on the consent from the prosecution.

5. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the trial court dated 04.04.2017 in Crl.MP.No.446 of 2017 in C.C.No.9/2011, the petitioner has filed this petition before this court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the records furnished before the sanctioned authority and the history of the case placed before the sanctioned authority have the vital role to decide the issue. Based on the records placed before the sanction authority, the sanction was accorded but, now, it cannot be claimed as a privilege communication as it is go to the root of the matter and the petitioner having put to ordeal of trial.

7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has every right and privilege to have the access to the said records to test the correctness of the sanction. The reason given for rejecting the same has no basis and non-production of the same not only affect adversely but also cause prejudice to the interest of the accused. There is legal necessity assigned to direct the prosecution to produce the said referred request for sanction for prosecution for due consideration by the trial court. Otherwise, it will be suppressed forever and the violation of procedure may not come to the light of this court. However, the learned trial Judge has not considered the importance of the documents and simply allowed the application partly in respect of Doc.Nos.1 and 2 and also directed the prosecution to furnish the copy of the two documents and dismissed the same in respect of Doc.Nos.3 and 4 without any valid reason and since because the prosecution has stated that the documents are internal communications between the Departments.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/prosecution would submit that the document which is sought for by the petitio