2011 (2) TMI 1631 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for summoning documents.
2. Relevance and necessity of documents not relied upon by the prosecution.
3. Right of the accused to access documents under Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C.
4. Legality of reinvestigation versus further investigation.

Summary:

Scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C:
The petitioner filed an application u/s 91 Cr.P.C for summoning documents not relied upon by the prosecution, specifically Final Report-I (FR-I) and Final Report-II (FR-II) prepared by the erstwhile Investigating Officer. The trial court dismissed the application, stating that documents not relied upon by the prosecution need not be produced. The High Court affirmed that u/s 91 Cr.P.C, the necessity and desirability of documents must be considered in context, and the accused's request for documents at the pre-charge stage is generally irrelevant as the defense is not pertinent at this stage.

Relevance and Necessity of Documents:
The petitioner argued that FR-I and FR-II were necessary to demonstrate false implication and improper investigation. The court held that these reports, being opinions of the Investigating Officer, are not statements of fact and thus not relevant or admissible evidence. The court emphasized that opinions of Investigating Officers are not binding and cannot be considered expert opinions under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

Right of the Accused to Access Documents:
The petitioner contended that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution necessitates access to all documents. The court, however, reiterated that the accused's right to documents is limited to those relied upon by the prosecution as per Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. The court cited precedents stating that the accused cannot claim an indefeasible right to all documents in the police file, and the doctrine of disclosure does not extend to documents not relied upon by the prosecution.

Legality of Reinvestigation versus Further Investigation:
The petitioner claimed that the subsequent investigation by another officer constituted illegal reinvestigation. The court clarified that no charge sheet had been filed, and the complaint was filed by the new Investigating Officer. The court distinguished between reinvestigation and further investigation, noting that the latter is permissible before filing a charge sheet. The court held that the transfer of investigation did not amount to reinvestigation forbidden under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was neither entitled to the documents requested under Section 91 Cr.P.C nor was it the appropriate stage for such production. The court upheld the trial court's decision and emphasized adherence to procedural law and judicial precedents.