Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Accuse cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the trial or at the stage of framing of charge The consistent legal position across multiple judgments is that an accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the trial or at the stage of framing of charges to seek production of documents or evidence to establish innocence. This is because the process of investigation is unilateral, out of the accused's control, and the provision is not meant for the benefit of the accused at this stage. Several courts have emphasized that Section 91 is applicable primarily during investigation or inquiry, and its invocation before the court at the charge stage is barred ["Gopakumar V. G. VS Deputy Superintendent of Police - Kerala"]; ["Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Thr. SHO Police Station ANTF - Crimes"]; ["Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Th. SHO Police Station ANTF Gandhi Nagar Jammu - J&K"]; ["Ratti S/o Aseena VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]; ["Suresh Chandra Sahu @ Suresh Sahu vs State Of Odisha - Orissa"]; ["Amar Singh Kamria VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"]; ["Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Organization vs Shri Umesh Tiwari - Allahabad"]; ["Anil Roop Mathur VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]; ["Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Organization vs Shri Umesh Tiwari - Allahabad"]; ["Kadiyala Simhachalam VS E State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"]; ["Narendra Kumar VS State of Rajasthan, Through PP - Rajasthan"]; ["Union of India VS Ajoy Kumar Singh - Bombay"]; ["R.DHARMALINGAM vs K.P.RAMASAMY - Madras"]; ["Abdul Shadab Usmani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]; ["SRI A DINAKAR RAI vs STATE BY S.H.O BAJAPE P S - Karnataka"]; ["MANIKANT MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]; ["Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Organization vs Shri Umesh Tiwari - Allahabad"].
Legal rationale and main insights Courts have clarified that Section 91 is intended to be invoked during investigation or inquiry, not during trial or at the stage of framing charges, as the record relevant to the case is limited to what is produced under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have explicitly held that the accused's right to invoke Section 91 does not extend to the trial stage, and such invocation is not permissible unless the court, in its discretion, permits it for reasons of justice ["Gopakumar V. G. VS Deputy Superintendent of Police - Kerala"]; ["Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Thr. SHO Police Station ANTF - Crimes"]; ["Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Th. SHO Police Station ANTF Gandhi Nagar Jammu - J&K"]; ["Suresh Chandra Sahu @ Suresh Sahu vs State Of Odisha - Orissa"]; ["Anil Roop Mathur VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]; ["Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Organization vs Shri Umesh Tiwari - Allahabad"]; ["Narendra Kumar VS State of Rajasthan, Through PP - Rajasthan"]; ["Union of India VS Ajoy Kumar Singh - Bombay"]; ["R.DHARMALINGAM vs K.P.RAMASAMY - Madras"].
Exceptions and judicial discretion While the general rule bars invocation of Section 91 at the charge stage, courts have acknowledged that in exceptional cases, if justice so requires, the court may exercise its inherent power to allow the production of documents, but this is at the court’s discretion and not a right of the accused ["Ratti S/o Aseena VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]; ["Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Organization vs Shri Umesh Tiwari - Allahabad"]; ["Union of India VS Ajoy Kumar Singh - Bombay"].
Conclusion The prevailing legal view is that the accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the trial or at the stage of framing of charges to seek documents or evidence to establish innocence. The provision is primarily meant for use during investigation or inquiry, and its invocation at later stages is generally barred unless the court, in the interest of justice, permits otherwise ["Gopakumar V. G. VS Deputy Superintendent of Police - Kerala"]; ["Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Thr. SHO Police Station ANTF - Crimes"]; ["Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Th. SHO Police Station ANTF Gandhi Nagar Jammu - J&K"].
In criminal proceedings under Indian law, Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, plays a crucial role in summoning documents or things essential for investigations, inquiries, trials, or other proceedings. But a common question arises: Can the accused invoke Section 91 CrPC during travel, investigation, or before the trial stage? This query often surfaces when defense strategies are being planned early on. Generally, the answer is no—the accused's right to invoke this provision is limited and typically emerges only after key procedural milestones.
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from authoritative judgments and principles. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 91 CrPC empowers a court or police officer to issue summons for producing documents or things that are necessary or desirable for:- Investigation- Inquiry- Trial- Other proceedings
The provision aims to prevent justice from failing by ensuring relevant evidence isn't overlooked. However, its application isn't absolute, especially concerning the accused. The primary beneficiaries are usually the court or prosecution, with the accused having restricted access. State of Rajasthan VS Swarn Singh @ Baba - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 888
During the investigation stage—or even travel (referring to transit or pre-trial custody phases)—the process is unilateral. The accused has no participatory role. Courts have consistently held that the process of investigation is unilateral in nature where the accused has no role to play during pendency of investigation, the accused cannot as of right invoke Section 91. V. L. S. Finance Ltd. VS S. P. Gupta - 2016 2 Supreme 12Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin VS Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda - 2018 1 Supreme 170Special Police Establishment VS Umesh Tiwari - 2022 Supreme(MP) 58
For instance:- In a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, it was observed that the accused can invoke power and jurisdiction of Court, Section 91 CrPC after filing of the charge-sheet. Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin VS Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda - 2018 1 Supreme 170- Another judgment emphasized: An accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C.... has no right to invoke Section 91. Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Organization vs Shri Umesh Tiwari
Allowing the accused to summon documents prematurely could interfere with the investigating agency's autonomy and lead to fishing expeditions. In one case involving call details of a complainant, the trial court permitted the accused to invoke Section 91 during investigation, but this was set aside on appeal. The higher court clarified: production of document or thing can be directed by Court after satisfaction that such production is necessary... this is impermissible since process of investigation is unilateral. Special Police Establishment VS Umesh Tiwari - 2022 Supreme(MP) 58Special Police Establishment VS Umesh Tiwari - 2022 Supreme(MP) 437
Key takeaway: Accused persons should refrain from filing Section 91 applications at this stage, as they are likely to be rejected.
Once the charge sheet (final report under Section 173 CrPC) is filed, proceedings become multilateral, involving prosecution, victim, and accused. Here, the accused may invoke Section 91, subject to court satisfaction on necessity and desirability.
At the charge-framing stage (under Sections 227/228/239/240 CrPC), courts primarily rely on prosecution material. The accused cannot introduce defense evidence or invoke Section 91 to disprove charges.
The Supreme Court has ruled: at the stage of framing of charge, the Court can consider only the material produced by the prosecution. State of Rajasthan VS Swarn Singh @ Baba - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 888State Of Orissa VS Debendra Nath Pandhi - 2004 8 Supreme 568
Further: Accused cannot at the stage of framing of charge invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to prove his innocence. Shree Coimbatore Gujarati Samaj, Rep. by its Secretary, Chandrakant Patel VS Ashwin C. Thakker - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1866G. N. MISHRA VS DIVYA AWASTHI - 2012 Supreme(All) 2237
This prevents turning charge hearings into mini-trials.
While the rule is restrictive, exceptions exist if the accused shows material of sterling quality withheld by the prosecution, essential for justice. The court may then summon documents even pre-trial.
In privacy-sensitive cases, like call records, courts balance rights but still deny accused-led summons during investigation, directing agencies instead. Special Police Establishment VS Umesh Tiwari - 2022 Supreme(MP) 58
Several rulings solidify this framework:1. State of Rajasthan VS Swarn Singh @ Baba - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 888: Accused cannot invoke during investigation/travel; permissible post-charge sheet and trial.2. V. L. S. Finance Ltd. VS S. P. Gupta - 2016 2 Supreme 12: Unilateral investigation bars accused's right; post-charge sheet invocation possible for withheld sterling material.3. Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin VS Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda - 2018 1 Supreme 170: Rights arise after charge sheet, not during investigation/travel.4. Ku. Urja Jain, D/o. Ajay Jain VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Superintendent of Police, Raipur (C. G. ) - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 61: Section 91 does not apply to accused persons during investigation.5. Bharat Bhushan Vs Anti Corruption Bureau Jammu - 2025 Supreme(J&K) 12: Power invocable only during inquiry/investigation/trial, not preliminary verification.
These align with Supreme Court precedents like (2005) 1 SCC 568 and (2018) 2 SCC 93, stressing procedural stages. Special Police Establishment VS Umesh Tiwari - 2022 Supreme(MP) 58
In unrelated but illustrative contexts, like abscondence trials, strict compliance with provisions (e.g., Section 299 CrPC) underscores procedural rigor, though not directly applicable here. Kader Khan VS State of West Bengal - 2022 Supreme(Cal) 188
In summary, the accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC during travel, investigation, or charge-framing as a matter of right. This power vests primarily post-charge sheet and during trial, contingent on court approval. As reaffirmed: the accused cannot invoke Section 91 during the investigation or travel stages, and such invocation is primarily permissible after filing of the charge sheet and during trial. State of Rajasthan VS Swarn Singh @ Baba - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 888
Understanding these nuances protects rights without overstepping. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to navigate CrPC effectively.
Key Takeaways:- Investigation: No accused right—unilateral process. V. L. S. Finance Ltd. VS S. P. Gupta - 2016 2 Supreme 12- Post-Charge Sheet/Trial: Possible with court nod.- Exceptions: Rare, for sterling withheld material.- Always demonstrate 'necessity and desirability'.
#CrPCSection91, #AccusedRights, #CriminalLawIndia
It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91. ... The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the preservation of CCTV footages is highly required to establish his defence during the trial. The learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) submits that the petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. at this stage. ... If under Section 227, what i....
Delving on the scope of Section 91 Cr.PC the three-Judge Bench concluded that the accused cannot, at the stage of framing of charge, be permitted to invoke section 91 CrPC to seek production of any document which may be relevant to prove his innocence. ... If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91#H....
Delving on the scope of Section 91 Cr.PC the three-Judge Bench concluded that the accused cannot, at the stage of framing of charge, be permitted to invoke section 91 CrPC to seek production of any document which may be relevant to prove his innocence. ... If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91#H....
Swarn Singh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5537, and submitted before this Court that the accused, at the time of framing of charge, cannot invoke section 91 of the Cr.P.C. ... The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while holding that the accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of framing of charge or taking cognizance (in paragraph 23) and that the accused cannot invoke section 91 of Cr.P.C#HL_END....
section 91 application is allowed then the Court would travel beyond the purview of section 319 CrPC. ... , cannot be utilized for the purpose of invoking section 319 CrPC. ... and to support the evidence by the Court to invoke the power under section 319 CrPC. ... No. 112/2015 by which the trial Judge has dismissed an application under section 91 CrPC whereby the petitioners accused sought to bri....
cannot be denied his right to invoke Section 91. ... An accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. ... has no right to invoke Section 91. ... has no role to play during pendency of investigation, the accused cannot as of right invoke Section 91. ... Court can also invoke Section 91 Cr.....
It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91. ... However, since the process of investigation is unilateral in nature where the accused has no role to play during pendency of investigation, the accused cannot as of right invoke Section 91. ... More so, when the language of Section 91 CrPC itself does not put any bar for the acc....
4.6 However, since the process of investigation is unilateral in nature where the accused has no role to play during pendency of investigation, the accused cannot as of right invoke section 91. ... As regards objection of the prosecution, this Court is of the firm view that except during the pendency of the process of investigation, the accused cannot be denied his right to invoke section 91. ... It does not mean that the defence h....
4.6 However, since the process of investigation is unilateral in nature where the accused has no role to play during pendency of investigation, the accused cannot as of right invoke Section 91. ... As regards objection of the prosecution, this Court is of the firm view that except during the pendency of the process of investigation, the accused cannot be denied his right to invoke Section 91. ... It does not mean that the defence h....
Kuttan Pillai (supra), it is fairly well settled that Section 91 of the CrPC would not apply to the accused persons and the same is no longer res judicata being well settled and it is held that Section 91 CrPC cannot be invoked against the present petitioners / accused persons, as they are accused of ... 91(1) of the CrPC. ... the purpose of an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding und....
1. The issues involved in the instant petition are akin and analogous to each others, as such, are being disposed of hereunder at this stage with the consent of the appearing counsel for the parties. The power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be invoked during an inquiry, investigation, or trial, not during preliminary verification. CRM(M) No. 317/2024 2. In the instant petition, the petitioner herein has invoked the inherent power of this Court saved under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summons issued by the respondents under Section 9....
Under such circumstances, Trial Court did not fall in error in permitting evidence of the deceased victim to be used against the petitioner. By his deliberate act of abscondence he had waived his right to be present and cross-examine witnesses. Hence, failure to invoke section 299(1) Cr.P.C. during the trial of the co-accuseds is an irregularity and has not prejudiced the petitioner.
Accused cannot at the stage of framing of charge invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to prove his innocence.”
During the course of trial, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 91 of the CrPC was rejected on 11-8-2016. Thereafter, the prosecution filed supplementary charge-sheet on 7-11-2016 along with list of 21 additional witnesses and also one seizure memo along with receipt issued by Lalaram Banjare about the monetary transaction of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- was filed. The additional statement of Rakesh Lakhwani under Section 161 of the CrPC was also recorded on 14-9-2016 who stated that original receipt was given on Supurdnama to him on 14-9-2016. 3. It is the case of ....
It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. to seek production of any document to show his innocence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said verdict has also observed in paragraph 21 as follows :
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
