9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Challenge to the order of dismissal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The accused filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon five documents from the respondent, claiming the necessity of these documents for trial. Issue 2: Contentions of Petitioners and Respondents The petitioners sought to summon various documents, alleging potential alteration and manipulation of records in police custody. The respondent police contended that the petition was filed belatedly to delay proceedings, and that some documents had already been provided earlier. Issue 3: Trial Court Decision The Trial Court dismissed the petition under Section 91, stating that the petitioners failed to provide justifiable reasons for summoning the documents. Issue 4: Arguments of Counsel Petitioners argued that the documents were crucial for their defense and to contradict prosecution witnesses. They claimed the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition. Issue 5: Legal Provisions Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the issuance of summons for necessary documents, but the accused must demonstrate the relevance and necessity of the documents for a just decision. Issue 6: Case Diary and Other Documents Summoning of case diaries and certain documents was contested, with the court emphasizing the need for the accused to justify the necessity of such documents. Issue 7: Precedents and Legal Interpretations Various High Courts have highlighted the importance of demonstrating the relevance and necessity of documents for invoking Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issue 8: Conclusion The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that the petitioners failed to establish the necessity of summoning the documents for the trial. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's order.
|
