Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Gomati Dwivedy - Appellant
Versus
CBI/ACB Branch Lucknow - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1089 of 2024
Decided On : 23-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Navneet Awasthi, Gaurav Chand Kaushik
For the Respondent: Anurag Kumar Singh
A co-accused's sanction order is not a necessary document for the accused's defense at the initial trial stage, limiting the application of Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 23(2) and 13(1)
(D) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 409 and 420 - Revision against rejection of application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of sanction order for co-accused - Court held that the order refusing sanction for prosecution does not fall under documents necessary for the accused's defense as per Section 91. (Paras 2, 10, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 91 - Necessity and desirability of documents for production - Court emphasized that the accused cannot invoke Section 91 at the initial stages when the defense is not relevant. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist challenged the rejection of an application seeking the production of an order denying sanction for prosecution of a co-accused in a corruption case. The affidavit supporting the application was noted to be inadequately verified.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the trial court's order and emphasized the limited scope of Section 91 regarding document production at the pre-defense stage.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Section 91 and the relevance of the sanction order for the accused's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the production of documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not available to the accused at the initial stage of trial, as the defense is not relevant until later stages.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the revisionist challenges the validity of a prior court order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. concerns regarding the verification of affidavits by legal counsel. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. application under section 91 cr.p.c. for document production. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. clarification on the requirements for document production under section 91. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. order refusing sanction for prosecution is not subject to section 91. (Para 10) |
| 6. revision dismissed; no merit found in the appeal. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Navneet Awasthi, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.
2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has challenged the validity of an order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) C.B.I. Court No.3, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.2370 of 2018, arising out of R.C. No. 0062015A0017, under Sections 120B, 409 and 420 IPC and Sections 23 (2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, lodged at Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow, whereby an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist seeking a direction to the Secretary, National Informatics Centre for production of an order refusing sanction for prosecution of another co-accused person Naseem Ahmad has been rejected.
3. A copy of the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been annexed as Annexure No.11 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision. This application is supported by an affidavit of the revisionist. The affidavit runs into as many as 52 paragraphs and numerous judgments have been referred to and extracts of the judgment have been quoted in the affidavit of the revisionist. The verification clause of the affidavit filed before the learned trial court is being quoted below:-
“Verification I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs__________ to ___________ of the affidavit are true to my own knowledge, those of paragraphs ___________ to ___________ are on the basis of legal advise and those of paras______________to _______________are based on record.
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed, so help me God.”
4. It is very disturbing to note that even when cases are filed on the basis of affidavits, the advocates treat verification and swearing of affidavits as an empty formality and they even do not fulfill that formality before filing the affidavit in a court. It is also very disturbing that the Oath Commissioner has verified the affidavit without even taking care to have a look at it and without ascertaining as to whether the deponent has in fact verified the contents of the affidavit. This casual approach of the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as that of the oath commissioner cannot be appreciated by the Court, to say the least.
5. Even on merits of, through the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has prayed for directing the Secretary, National Informatics Center (NIC) to present before the trial Court the order denying sanction for prosecution of a co-accused person Sri Naseem Ahmad.
6. Section 91 Cr.P.C. provides as follows: -
“91. Whenever any Court or any officer-in-charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.”
7. The trial court has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi , (2005) 1 SCC 568 , wherein it has been held that: -
“25. Any document
