Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J
State – Appellant
Versus
Alex C Joseph – Respondent
CRL OP No. 6722 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Sidharth
For the Respondents: N.Baskaran
The court upheld a trial court's order requiring the production of documents under S. 91 Cr.P.C. regarding a rejected prosecution sanction, affirming that documents relevant to the same set of allegations and essential for cross-examination must be provided to the accused.
Headnote:The present petition challenges an order passed by the Trial Court under S. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the production of documents related to a failed sanction request for one of the co-accused in the same criminal transaction. The petitioner contended that the documents regarding the rejected sanction were irrelevant to the respondent's case, while the respondent argued that the documents were essential for cross-examination as they pertained to the underlying allegations. The core issue is whether a trial court has the discretion to order the production of documents under S. 91 Cr.P.C. that pertain to a co-accused's sanction proceedings when those documents are relevant to the cross-examination of witnesses in the main trial. The ratio decidendi established is that if documents recovered during an investigation cycle—even those related to an unsuccessful prosecution sanction—are intrinsically linked to the same set of allegations, the accused is entitled to access them to ensure a fair trial and effective cross-examination. The Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, directing the immediate production of the records.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and background of the document request. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. right of the accused to access relevant investigation evidence under s. 91 cr.p.c. for cross-examination. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5935 of 2023 in C.C.No.37 of 2015 on the file of the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondent seeking certain documents under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. A perusal of the records reveals that the respondent is one of the named accused in Crime No.RC.12(A)/2013. There are totally seven accused, in which the first accused is a public servant. During the course of investigation, the petitioner herein sought sanction for prosecuting the first accused in the FIR. However, the Sanctioning Authority did not accord any sanction to prosecute the first accused. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a final report as against the other accused persons. Now, the respondent and others are facing trial before the Trial Court in which, the prosecution had already examined P.W.1 to P.W.24 and the Investigating Officer alone remains to be examined.
4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases) appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 19.01.2017 rejecting the request for sanction to prosecute the first accused has no way connected to the respondent’s case. Since the request made by the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute the first accused was rejected, the same is nothing to do with the issues involved in the present case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the documents sought to be produced are very much relevant for the purpose of cross examining the witnesses, as they pertain to the very same set of allegations involved in the present case. The Sanctioning Authority did not accord the sanction to prosecute the first accused on the ground that there were no materials available as against him. Therefore, in that line, the respondent is entitled to rely upon the said documents while cross examining the witnesses. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 91 of Cr.P.C and directed the petitioner herein to produce the documents pertaining to File No.C-14011/63/16-AD Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs.
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5935 of 2023 in C.C.No.37 of 2015 on the file of the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to produce the documents pertaining to File No.C-14011/63/16-AD Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, before the Trial Court forthwith. The Trial Court is directed to serve a copy of the said documents to the respondent herein.
