Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma VS State (NCT of Delhi)...
Checking relevance for State Of Kerala VS Babu...
1999 4 Supreme 412 : The prosecution cannot object to a Section 91 petition filed by the accused seeking production of general diaries, case diaries, or police station registers if the court determines that the production of such documents is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the court to summon any document or thing, including a police diary maintained under Section 172, which is a document as contemplated under Section 91(1). The court may summon a case diary of another case not pertaining to the trial in hand if it considers such production necessary or desirable for the trial. While Section 172 does not permit summoning of case diaries for the accused''''s benefit under Section 162, Section 91 provides an independent basis for summoning such documents. When a case diary is summoned under Section 91, the restrictions under Section 172(2) and (3) do not apply, though the court must still observe the limitations under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act when using previous statements from the diary. Therefore, the prosecution''''s objection to such a petition would not be valid if the court finds the document necessary for the trial.Checking relevance for V. L. S. Finance Ltd. VS S. P. Gupta...
Checking relevance for Manoj VS State of Madhya Pradesh...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 500 : The prosecution cannot object to a Section 91 petition filed by the accused seeking production of general diaries, case diaries, and police station registers. Under Section 91 CrPC, the court has the power to summon any document or thing necessary for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, or trial. The accused has a right to apply for the production of any document or witness, and the court must pass a reasoned order. The court emphasized that the right to fair trial includes the right to access documents that may affect the defense, particularly when non-production would prejudice the accused. In the context of police diaries, the court held that failure to maintain them accurately undermines the accused’s right to fair investigation, and the trial court must scrutinize such records. The prosecution’s duty includes fair disclosure, and documents obtained bona fide and relevant to the case must be disclosed to the accused, especially if their non-production would affect justice. Therefore, the prosecution cannot object to a valid Section 91 application for production of such records.Checking relevance for Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 787 : The prosecution cannot object to a Section 91 petition filed by the accused seeking production of general diaries, case diaries, and police station registers. The documents establish that the accused has a right to apply under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for the production of any document or thing necessary or desirable for the purposes of trial. The court''''s power under Section 91 is discretionary, but the accused''''s right to access documents is fundamental to a fair trial under Article 21. In the case of V.K. Sasikala vs. State (2012), the Supreme Court held that the accused has a right to access documents in the court''''s custody, including those that may be favorable to them, even if not exhibited by the prosecution. The court emphasized that the perception of prejudice is for the accused to develop, and if it is founded on a reasonable basis, the court must ensure the accused is not made to labor under such a perception. The court further held that the accused''''s right to access documents cannot be foreclosed by the prosecution''''s objection, and the court must balance the scales of justice by allowing access to documents that could affect the administration of criminal justice and the accused''''s defense. This right extends to documents such as general diaries, case diaries, and police station registers, which are part of the investigation records and may be relevant to the accused''''s defense.Checking relevance for Shamshul Kanwar VS State Of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Y. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Yellappa VS State of Karnataka...
2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 35 : The prosecution can object to a Section 91 petition filed by the accused seeking production of general diaries, case diaries, and police station registers. The court held that such documents cannot be summoned as a matter of routine, even upon the accused''''s request. The prosecution is not obligated to produce these documents in every case, as it would impair the functioning of police stations and is neither desirable nor feasible. The court emphasized that the accused must show a bona fide necessity for the documents, and mere demand is insufficient. The prosecution may object on grounds that the documents are not necessary for the trial, that their production would complicate the case unnecessarily, or that they contain confidential information (e.g., identity of informants) that must be protected for public interest. The court also noted that the accused can raise issues regarding procedural lapses during cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, which would shift the burden back to the prosecution to prove the absence of irregularities. Therefore, the prosecution has a legitimate right to object to such petitions when the accused fails to demonstrate a genuine need for the documents.Checking relevance for Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Thr. SHO Police Station ANTF...
Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Thr. SHO Police Station ANTF - Crimes (2024)
: The prosecution can object to a petition filed by the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of documents such as General Diaries, Case Diaries, and Police Station Registers, as the court’s power to summon documents even if withheld by the investigator or prosecutor implies that the prosecution has a role in the process, including the right to oppose such applications. The court evaluates the necessity and desirability of the document’s production, and the prosecution’s position may be considered during this assessment.
