Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Mohammed Zoha - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police & Chennai & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 452 of 2024 & Crl. M.P. No. 292 of 2024
Decided On : 11-01-2024
Section 91 of Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Documents - NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 8(c) r/w 22(c) - [Section 91 of Cr.P.C., NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 8(c) r/w 22(c)] - The court discussed the nature of documents sought, the stage at which they are sought, and the relevance to the witnesses. It emphasized that the summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage and is not limited to the defense stage. The court set aside the lower court's order and directed the concerned officials to produce the documents, subject to relevancy, admissibility, and proof.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking the production of certain documents while facing trial for offenses under the NDPS Act, 1985. The lower court dismissed the application, stating that such documents can only be sought at the defense stage.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage and emphasized the relevance of the documents to effectively cross-examine the official witnesses.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner could seek the production of certain documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of trial before the defense stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of documents, the stage at which they are sought, and their relevance to the witnesses should be considered when deciding on the summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Original Petition, set aside the lower court's order, and directed the concerned officials to produce the documents sought by the petitioner, subject to relevancy, admissibility, and proof.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records culminating in Crl.M.P.No.5884 of 2023 in C.C.No.253 of 2023 on the file of Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai order dated 12.10.2023, set aside the same.)
1. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.5884 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), for directing the respondents to produce certain documents that were mentioned in the application.
2. Heard Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is facing trial before the Court below for offences under Section 8(c) r/w 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution had examined three witnesses. The petitioner at that stage filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking for a direction for production of certain documents, which according to the petitioner is required while cross examining the Police Officials and Investigation Officer. This application came to be dismissed by the Court below by an order dated 12.10.2023 on the ground that those documents can be sought for only if the case reaches the defense stage. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The Court below was under the impression that if the accused person wants to rely upon any document in order to substantiate his defense, he has to wait till the case reaches the defense stage and thereafter, invoke Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The Court below was under the further impression that no such application can be filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. during the course of trial. Therefore, the Court below has virtually directed the petitioner to wait till the case reaches the stage of defense and thereafter, to file such an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
5. The petitioner wanted to summon the following documents:
“A. The General Diary maintained at their office maintained chronologically for the dates 27.08.2022 to 30.08.2022.
B. The copy of the Daily Diary of the Inspector of Police Mr.Kumar N S and his Pocket Note Book for the dates 27.08.2022 to 30.08.2022.
C. The copy of the Daily Dairy of the SubInspector of Police Mr.Kathiravan N and his Pocket Note Book for the dates 27.08.2022 to 30.08.2022.
D. The copy of the Daily Diary of the Head Constable of Police Mr.Murugan and his Pocket Note Book for the dates 27.08.2022 to 30.08.2022.
E. The copy of the Daily Diary of the Constable of Police Mr.Gopalakrishnan and his Pocket Note Book for the dates 27.08.2022 to 30.08.2022.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-II, Puzhal (Respondent-2) to cause the production of the following documents, namely,
E. The Copy of the Photograph in the admission records of Central Prison-II, Puzhal in respect of petitioner, Mohamed Zoha while he was remanded to judicial custody on 29.08.2022.”
6. The summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage and there is no fixed formula that such a request can be made only after the completion of the examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution. Normally, the defense of the accused is never revealed and it comes to the surface while cross examining the prosecution witnesses. There is a present trend where such applications are filed even before framing of charges or even before the commencement of the examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution. While dealing with this trend, this Court has held that the invocation of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. at such an initial stage of framing of charge would not arise, since the defense of the accused at that stage is not relevant. However, this position will sightly change once the examinat
The summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage of the trial and is not limited to the defense stage.
Point of law: Quash of order - it is not upon accused to disprove their case or to show who the guilty is, and the entire Durden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt would be sole....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's entitlement to seek production of documents under Sec. 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defense, and the expressio....
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at the charge framing stage, as the necessity of documents for defense is not relevant at that point.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion under Section 91 CrPC, affirming that only necessary documents for a just decision should be summoned.
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.
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC to produce documents for defense at the charge framing stage; only prosecution materials are considered.
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
