The power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked when the relevancy and necessity or desirability of the documents are demonstrated by the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for Trial for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No. 169 of 2020 in Spl.C.No.23 of 2014 dismissing the petition, dated 20.03.2020, filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C., and set aside the same.)

1. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No. 23 of 2014, on the file of the Special Court for Trial for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli. The petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is facing the trial.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the First Information Report came to be registered in the year 2005 and final report was filed in the year 2007 and that the said case is pending for the past 13 years since the date of cognizance.

3. It is also not in dispute that when the said case was pending for defence evidence, the above application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., came to be filed and that the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order on 06.07.2020 dismissing the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner / accused has come forward with the original petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the fist instance would contend that the trial Judge after receiving the counter statement on 01.07.2020, during the Covid 19 Pandemic time, has dismissed the petition without hearing the petitioner's side and that the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside.

5. When the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was required to explain their stand, he would contend that the trial Judge, only after hearing both sides, has passed the order, now under challenge.

6. Immediately, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Judge has not afforded sufficient opportunity to argue their case elaborately in physical mode, that he is not blaming or making any allegation against the judicial officer and that he is not pressing the said ground of attack.

7. The immediate response of the learned counsel in withdrawing the said allegation is very much appreciable. But since the said ground of attack finds place in the main original petition, this Court is constrained to deal with the same.

8. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned trial Judge has specifically observed that the order impugned was passed upon hearing the both sides. It is not the specific case of the petitioner that despite their opposition and objection to conduct the enquiry virtually, the trial Judge has proceeded with the case and passed the impugned order. During the Covid Pandemic period, the entire Country was working virtually. Since the petitioner has not raised any objection before the trial Court, he is estopped from canvassing or raising such a stand before this Court. The very lodging of a complaint that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to argue elaborately physically is very much against the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitting virtual hearing of the cases and the directions of this Court issued through various circulars during the Pandemic period for conducting the cases virtually.

9. Moreover, it is high time for the stakeholders of the Judiciary to refrain from making allegations or levelling charges against the Judicial officers without any basis or iota of truth. More importantly, since the bar and the bench being the two sides of the same coin, the bar must discourage their clients and the litigant from raising baseless allegations and they must desist from incorporating the same in the pleadings.

10. Now, coming to the main aspect of the case, the accused by invoking Section 91 Cr.P.C., has prayed to send for 4 sets of documents allegedly from the custody of Forest Department, Commercial Tax Department and from the