COMMON ORDER:

Crl.Rc.No.616 of 2022 Impugning the orders in Crl.MP.No.341 of 2020 in C.C.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Special Judge for CBI cases dated 09.05.2022 the present revision Under Section 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C) is preferred by the accused.

Crl.P.No.4836 of 2022 Impugning the order in Crl.M.P.No.845 of 2021 in C.C.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Special Judge for CBI cases dated 07.01.2022 the present Criminal Petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed by the accused.

1. Since the issue and parties are one and the same, these petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2020 was filed by the Accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C praying to discharge him from the case. Whereas, Crl.M.P.No.845 of 2021 was filed by the Accused U/s 91 of Cr.P.C to direct the Investigating Officer (IO) to cause the production of file containing sanction proceedings which was filed in C.C.No.20/2010 and connected papers so as to enable him to go through the sanction proceedings to substantiate his arguments in the petition filed for discharge under Section

239 of Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and Sri D. Gopinath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that initially CBI filed charge sheet against the Petitioner in C.C.No.20/2010 before the Special Judge for CBI cases at Hyderabad, wherein PWs.1 to 8 were examined. At that stage, the Petitioner filed Crl.P.No.5068 of 2015 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C challenging the competency of sanctioning Authority (PW.8 in CC No.20/2010). The said petition was allowed and CC No.20/2010 was quashed, but the Hon’ble Court gave liberty to CBI to file fresh Charge-sheet after obtaining fresh sanction order from Competent Authority. Learned counsel further would submit that the I.O. after obtaining fresh sanction order filed Charge-sheet which was taken on file as CC No.22/2016, wherein the Petitioner for his discharge from case filed another petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C for production of sanction file which was filed initially. Learned counsel further would submit that these two petitions were dismissed by the Court erroneously. Learned counsel further would submit that the production of sanction file is very much necessary for submission of their arguments in the discharge petition.

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would submit that is not the proper stage for the Accused to file a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C for production of documents for the purpose of discharge. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra N. Padhi, [[2005 (1) SCC 568]], wherein it was observed thus:

“Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is 'necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code'. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the Court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks