2012 (3) TMI 725 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the trial court's dismissal of the application u/s 91 Cr. PC.
2. Relevance and necessity of the documents sought for cross-examination.
3. Judicial discretion in summoning documents u/s 91 Cr. PC.

Summary:

1. Legality of the trial court's dismissal of the application u/s 91 Cr. PC:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order dated 19/12/2011, which dismissed an application u/s 91 Cr. PC for summoning certain documents. The petitioner, along with co-accused, faced trial for offences u/s 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, related to the allotment of UAS Licenses and Spectrum by the DoT. The trial court dismissed the application, viewing it as a fishing expedition intended to delay proceedings.

2. Relevance and necessity of the documents sought for cross-examination:
The petitioner argued that the documents were necessary for the effective cross-examination of PW7, Mr. Aseervatham Achary, to demonstrate his involvement in official work and impeach his credibility. The petitioner cited judgments emphasizing the necessity and relevance of documents u/s 91 Cr. PC. However, the learned Standing Counsel for CBI contended that the documents were vague and irrelevant for cross-examination purposes.

3. Judicial discretion in summoning documents u/s 91 Cr. PC:
The trial court relied on the Apex Court's judgment in State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi [AIR 2005 SC 359], which held that Section 91 Cr. PC does not confer a right on the accused to produce documents to prove their defense at the stage of framing charges. The court must determine the necessity and desirability of documents based on the stage of the trial and the party requesting them. The petitioner sought various documents, including letters, visitor registers, and call records, which the court found to be an attempt at a roving inquiry into PW7's activities. The court concluded that the documents lacked specific necessity or relevance to the testimony of PW7 or the trial.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the trial court's discretion, finding no relevancy or necessity for the documents sought by the petitioner. The petition was dismissed as frivolous, with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.