The court emphasized the importance of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in enabling the court to summon relevant documents or materials for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The matter was heard on 26.08.2022 and it was placed today for dictation of judgment.

2. Few facts which are required to be considered before venturing into the legal prospective with regards to the impugned order of 01.12.2021, resulting into rejection of an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2018 State vs. Harjeet Singh & Others.

3. An FIR No.10 of 2018 was registered on 07.01.2018 with regards to the involvement of the named accused persons therein, in the FIR for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC. At this stage the detailed analysis about the set of allegations levelled in the FIR, in relation to the involvement of each of the co-accused persons is not required to be ventured into by this Court, on its merits for the reason being, that the counsel for the applicant has confined her arguments qua the impugned order, rejecting the application which was preferred by the applicant co-accused, under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. which finds place on the records. In the application thus filed by one of the co-accused persons. In the application thus preferred under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by Tersem Singh, the co-accused which was numbered as Paper No.113 Kha. The prayer, which was sought for was, that the DVR, which was taken in possession by the police that may be summoned by the court for the purposes of its consideration during the trial. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order exclusively based upon the statement of the owner of the Jewellery Shop i.e. Krishna Jewellers namely, Mr. Vilayati Ram, son of Harbansh Lal, who has made a statement, that in the incident, which has chanced on 07.01.2018 and the incident which stood recorded by CCTV Camera, it was only the recording of the CCTV Camera footage, which in fact was taken in the custody by the police and in fact no DVR was taken. As such, in that eventuality, the court has drawn an inference, for assigning the reasoning, which has been assigned in para 10 of the impugned order dated 01.12.2021, that since in accordance with the statement of Mr. Vilayati Ram, as the DVR (Digital Video Recorder), was not taken in possession by the police, there is no occasion for the same to be placed on record by invoking the provisions contained under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

4. The FIR which was thus instituted, after submission of the charge sheet, the cognizance has been taken resulting to the registration of Sessions Trial No.87 of 2018 State vs. Harjeet Singh & Others, which is presently pending consideration before the Court of 1st Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar for trying the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307, 504, 506 & 34 IPC, which was registered at P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the basic spirit of Section 91 of Cr.P.C if it is taken into consideration, in fact it is an enabling provisions and the powers, which is being vested with the court or an officer who is In-charge of the police station could be called upon by the court ceased with trial to produce the documents or other things or articles, which may be desirable to be considered in evidence, while conducting a trial by the court and that is why under Chapter 7 of Cr.P.C. it uses the word, “Process To Compel The Production Of Things”. The compelling aspect herein under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. would be an exclusive vesting of powers, with the court seized to the trial for summoning the documents, or any material which may be relevant for the purposes of considering the trial, in order to have an effective adjudication of set of allegations, which is being tried by the court. Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted hereund