Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Central Bureau Of Investigtation, Through Supdt. Of Police, Banking Securities Fraud Branch, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Raheja, S/o. Sh. Ram Chand Raheja – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for setting aside previous order. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of fraud against respondent. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. investigation completion and sanction order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. request for documents from cbi. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. challenging supply of non-relevant documents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court’s authority on document relevance. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. consideration of validity of sanction during trial. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. respondent's position on document relevance. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. necessity for fair sanction procedure. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 10. document relevance at charge framing stage. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 11. power of court to summon documents. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 12. accused's right to document production. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 13. disclosure of documents for justice. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 14. relevance of documents in pre-trial phase. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 15. judge's role in assessing prosecution case. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 16. rights of the accused during charge framing. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 17. limitations on document requests by accused. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 18. conclusion on sanction documents. (Para 52) |
| 19. final ruling on petition. (Para 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
The Court ruled that documents not relied upon by the prosecution during the charge framing stage are not to be disclosed to the accused; issues related to the validity of prosecution Sanction arise ....
Accused cannot seek documents to prove innocence at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.
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....
Repeated litigation on issues already settled by the court constitutes an abuse of process, reinforcing the validity of prior rulings on matters like sanction for prosecution.
Prosecution must supply list of unrelied-upon documents to accused under Section 91 CrPC for fair trial, even pre-defence stage if necessary, overriding confidentiality claims for public documents.
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
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
