2026 Supreme(Online)(DC) 12

DISTRICT COURT
Vishal Gogne, Special Judge
Lalu Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
CC No. 59/2022|RC No. 2202022E0007

An accused is not entitled to the production of unrelied documents as a matter of right at the start of a trial. Such applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. must establish necessity and are typically considered at the stage of defence evidence, not during the prosecution's evidence phase.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 91, 207, 208, 233(3), 311 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 11, 12, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Unrelied documents - Request for production by accused - Scope and stage - Statutory scheme does not entitle accused to receive all unrelied documents as a matter of right at the inception of trial - Provision of such documents is not an extension of section 207 Cr.P.C. - Accused must demonstrate necessity and desirability of such documents which is ordinarily assessed at the stage of defence evidence - Court must guard against attempts to disrupt trial or delay proceedings through frivolous applications disguised as preparation for cross-examination. (Paras 17, 21, 23, 29, 39, 41, 46).

(B) Criminal Trial - Fair Trial - Rights of accused - Right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses - While the right to a fair trial is paramount, it does not confer a blanket entitlement to access unrelied documents prior to commencement of defence evidence - Cross-examination must be conducted based on materials brought on record by prosecution; it cannot be held in abeyance or transformed into a fishing expedition for unrelied documents. (Paras 35, 50, 66, 75).

Facts of the case:
The accused persons moved multiple applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking access to various documents collected during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution in the final report. The applicants contended that these documents were essential for the effective cross-examination of upcoming prosecution witnesses. The prosecution opposed the requests, arguing that the accused were attempting to delay the trial and had already been provided with the list of unrelied documents and adequate opportunities for inspection.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the accused failed to demonstrate that the documents sought were 'necessary' or 'desirable' at the current stage of the trial. The court emphasized that the statutory framework for trial requires evidence to be led primarily on the basis of documents relied upon by the prosecution. The prayer for en bloc provision of unrelied documents was viewed as an attempt to derail the trial process.

Issues: The main issues were whether accused persons have a right to the production of unrelied documents at the inception of prosecution evidence and whether such documents are required for effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the accused has a right to be provided with a list of unrelied documents, there is no inherent right to seek the production of these documents as a matter of course. Such requests must satisfy the test of necessity and are generally to be considered at the stage of defence evidence. The court concluded that allowing such requests at the trial's inception would invert the statutory structure of the criminal justice system.

Result: Applications dismissed.