2010 (7) TMI 1232 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of applications u/s 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents by CBI.
2. Alleged withholding of evidence by CBI.
3. Fair trial and the rights of the accused.
4. Relevance and necessity of documents for the defense.

Summary:

1. Dismissal of Applications u/s 91 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners, accused police officials, filed applications u/s 91 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for CBI to produce certain documents and statements allegedly withheld. The trial court dismissed these applications, noting that the accused did not specify the relevance of the documents. The High Court upheld this dismissal, emphasizing that the accused must disclose the nature and relevance of the documents sought.

2. Alleged Withholding of Evidence by CBI:
The accused argued that CBI had withheld crucial documents and statements, which were necessary for their defense. They claimed that non-supply of these documents violated principles of natural justice. The High Court noted that the accused had not shown how these documents were relevant to their defense or cross-examination of witnesses.

3. Fair Trial and the Rights of the Accused:
The High Court emphasized that a fair trial must be consistent and timely, benefiting not only the accused but also the society, victim, and witnesses. It noted that the trial had been delayed significantly and that the applications seemed intended to further delay the proceedings.

4. Relevance and Necessity of Documents for the Defense:
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 91 Cr.P.C. in *State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi*, stating that the necessity and desirability of documents must be examined in the context of the trial stage. The accused cannot demand documents as a matter of right without showing their relevance. The court found that the accused had not demonstrated how the documents were necessary for their defense.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the trial court rightly dismissed the applications, as the accused failed to specify the relevance of the documents sought. The judgments cited by the petitioners did not support their case, as they were context-specific and did not establish a general principle applicable to the present case.