9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qua non for the petitioners to facilitate the further adjudication of the case. In the instant case, the petitioner does not contend that specific documents, crucial for the prosecution's assertion of its case beyond reasonable doubt, have not been disclosed. Instead, the petitioner seeks reference to another case purportedly filed against the complainant. In the court's assessment, at this juncture when the Trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence, the petitioner has not successfully demonstrated to the satisfaction of this court why these documents are pertinent for examination at this stage. This Court is of the opinion that right of the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the competent court to summon documents be reserved and the documents which the petitioner wishes to rely upon can be summoned at the stage of defence evidence in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi. Petition dismissed. - Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. For Appellant: Raju Mohan and Aranya Sinha, Advocates For Respondents: Rajesh Kumar, SPP an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner had made various calls on 14.12.2014, 15.12.2014, 16.12.2014, 22.12.2014, 29.12.2014 and 03.01.2015 for demanding bribe from the complainant. The investigation further disclosed that there was ample reliable evidence in the form of incriminating telephonic conversations between the present petitioner and the complainant, wherein it was established that the petitioner had demanded bribe from the complainant for showing him favour in the case investigated by CBI against him. After completion of investigation, CBI had filed a chargesheet on 03.03.15, against the petitioner and Sanjay Kumar Jha for offences punishable under Sections 120-B of IPC read with Section 7, 8 and 13(2), 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, learned Trial Court had framed charges against the petitioner on 09.05.2016. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 91 of CrPC and the same was disposed of by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated. 16.11.2019. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argues that the complainant in the year 2011 had been posted as Zonal Manager, North India Region of Dena Bank having his office at Panchkula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applications under Section 91 of Cr.P.C despite being provided with all documents as requested vide order dated 15.04.2019. Learned Special Counsel submits that as per directions given by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2019, the IO had visited the concerned court at Panchkula and had filed application before the concerned Special Judge, CBI for inspection of court file with the assistance of the accused and the same had been allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner after inspecting the files and identifying the documents had applied for certified copies and the same had been provided to the petitioner. It is submitted that the right to seek documents is not an absolute right available to the accused persons. It is stated that the documents which are relied upon by the prosecution to make out a case against the petitioner have already been supplied to him and that it is settled law that at the stage of Prosecution Evidence accused can only rely upon the documents relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is during the defence evidence stage, that the accused can request the summoning of documents that he believes to be essential to sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to be supplied to him. This Court was informed on 09.05.2019 that documents had been applied for. Later, certified copies were obtained and supplied to applicant/ accused. However, applicant/accused thereafter filed another application u/s 91 CrPC which is under consideration. Contrary to the submissions made by applicant/accused in the application, it appears that the copies of the documents , which were not supplied to him, were on account of the fact that the Copying Agency at Panchkula declined to supply the same. Though applicant/ accused has given details of the documents which he has not been supplied, he has failed to specify whether the said documents fall within the list of 14 documents, which were permitted to be supplied to him vide order dated 17.12.2018. In any event majority of the documents which applicant/accused had sought copies of, have already been supplied to him and the remaining cannot be supplied to him as the Copying Agency of concerned Court has declined to do so and the concerned branch of CBI is also not having copies thereof. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the instant application u/s 91 CrPC filed on behalf of applicant/ accused with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is before this Court seeking summoning of relevant documents as prayed for in his application and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2019. 15. It is the case of the petitioner that RC BD1/2013/E0002 had been registered in BS FC New Delhi on 28.02.2013 against one Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and others. It was alleged in the said RC that the Directors of M/s. HRM Exports Pvt. Ltd in connivance with the Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Panchkula Zone, had misused and diverted funds to the tune of Rs. 29.94 crores and thereby defrauded the Dena Bank. At that time the complainant had been posted as Zonal Manager, North India Region of Dena Bank having office at Panchkula, Haryana and his role was looked into during the course of investigation of the said case, as he was instrumental, in the capacity of Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Panchkula in processing the proposal of M/s. HRM Export Pvt. Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that the co-accused i.e. Shri Sanjay Kumar Jha had recommended prosecution of the complainant in the present case and therefore it would be relevant to summon certain documents from the said case in order to cross examine the complainant and confront him w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or another proceeding under the provisions of the Code. Where Section 91 read with Section 243 says that if the accused is called upon to enter his defence and produce his evidence there he has also been given the right to apply to the court for issuance of process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination, cross-examination or the production of any document or other thing for which the court has to pass a reasoned order. 19. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that right of the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the competent court to summon documents be reserved and the documents which the petitioner wishes to rely upon can be summoned at the stage of defence evidence in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi. 20. Accordingly, the present petition alongwith pending application, if any stands dismissed. 21. It is however, clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to avail appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
