Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Narasimman – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem – Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 10368 of 2022 & Crl.M.P. No. 6182 of 2022
Decided on : 18-07-2022
Section 91 - Criminal Original Petition - P.C ACT 1988 - 7A - Cr.P.C - 207 - 172 - 173 - The court discussed the relevance and necessity of documents for trial under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C, the discretion of the court to summon documents, and the timing of challenging the sanction of prosecution. The court referred to previous decisions and held that the examination of the validity of sanction is during the trial, and challenging the sanction does not arise at the pre-charge framing stage.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a discharge petition claiming lack of prima facie material and improper sanction of prosecution. The court considered the relevance of the sanction file and the timing of challenging the sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that challenging the sanction of prosecution does not arise at the pre-charge framing stage and that the file containing a request for sanction is not necessary at the stage of framing the charge.
Issues: Relevance of the sanction file, timing of challenging the sanction, and the necessity of documents for trial under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The examination of the validity of sanction is during the trial, and challenging the sanction does not arise at the pre-charge framing stage.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original petition was dismissed, and the connected Crl.M.P was closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records of the order dated 28.03.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.4653 of 2021 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of Chief Judicial at Krishnagiri and set aside the same.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records of the order dated 28.03.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.4653 of 2021 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of Chief Judicial at Krishnagiri and set aside the same.
2. The accused is the petitioner herein.
3. Pursuant to the complaint given by the defacto-complainant, he lodged a complaint after completing all formalities, the respondent vigilance and Anti-Corruption has registered a case in Crime No.8/AC/2008 under Section 7A of the P.C ACT 1988 as amended in 2018. Thereafter, a trap proceedings was organized and final report was filed and the case is taken up as a Special S.C.No.1/2020. Pending the above special case, the accused has filed discharge petition and for the purpose of determination of the discharge petition he also filed C.M.P.No.4653 of 2022 under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C to send for the documents (file containing request for sanction) which is kept in office, Additional Chief Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai).
4. In the discharge petition No.1876 of 2020, he has raised the plea that there is no prima facie material and there is no proper sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. In order to substantiate that there is no proper sanction and hence for the said purpose he has filed the above C.M.P to send for the files relating to sanction of prosecution by the head of the Department.
5. The police have filed a counter stating that the sanction file is a confidential document and it is not necessary to produce the document at this stage and relied upon the decision 2006 2 MLJ Crl.460 Madras High Court [Mr.K.Pannerselvam and other Versus Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kadalur], on the point that the question of invoking Section 91 of the Cr.P.C at the initial stage to framing of charge would not arise.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.
7. In the decision reported in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Criminal O.P.No.14168 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.9047 of 2017,
"N.Seenivasagan Vs. The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai".
(a) "13. The sine qua non of an order under this Section is a consideration by the Court that the production of the documents concerned is desirable and necessary for the purposes of the trial Section 91 does not confer absolute right on the accused."
(b). It is held that where the document has no relevance on the case in hand, it is not desirable for the Court to summon the documents, the Court shall reject the petition filed under Section 91. Section 91 is not subjected to Section 172 & 173 of the code, the Prohibitions contained in Sections 172 and 173 of the Code do not crib, cabin and confine the power of the Court. Power of Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for summoning and production of documents is one of absolute discretion.
(c) The only condition for exercise of such discretion is that the Court must be of the opinion that the production of documents on the ground that prosecution was not relying on such documents are not acceptable one.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has relied upon the decision in 2006 (2) MLJ Criminal 460 Madras High Court, Mr.K.Pannerselvam and others Versus Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kadalur, Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the question of invoking Section 91 of Cr.P.C at the initial stage of framing charges would not arise, since the defence of the accused is not at the stage.
10. It appears that the petitioner/accused has filed petition for discharge
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
