2000 (4) TMI 856 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to order of Special Judge rejecting application under Section 91, Cr.P.C. for summoning documents.
2. Interpretation of Section 91, Cr.P.C. and exercise of discretion by Trial Court.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the decision of the Special Judge rejecting an application made under Section 91, Cr.P.C. The application sought to summon documents to demonstrate that the appellant, a former DIG of CBI, had not shown favoritism to certain individuals. The Special Judge found that the documents were not necessary to show the improbability of the prosecution's case and were merely an attempt to delay proceedings. The High Court concurred with this view, emphasizing that the exercise of discretion by the Trial Judge was neither unjust nor unreasonable. The Court held that the order was not illegal or vitiated, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The appellant relied on previous court decisions to support their claim, but the respondent argued that the documents were not relevant at that stage of the proceedings. Section 227 and Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code were cited to highlight the stage at which a person accused could be discharged, emphasizing the need for sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Court noted that the scope of hearing was not limited to oral arguments, allowing for the consideration of materials produced by the accused. The enabling nature of Section 91 was discussed, emphasizing the importance of timing and relevance in exercising the power to summon documents.

The Court emphasized that the Trial Court and the High Court had judiciously considered the nature and relevance of the documents sought to be summoned, concluding that their rejection was not condemnable. It was held that the Trial Court had properly applied its discretion, and there was no gross failure in jurisdiction warranting interference. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower courts. The Court also noted that observations made about the appellant's conduct were matters for evidence and argument during the trial, urging the Trial Court to proceed strictly based on the materials on record.