Accused Entitled To ‘Unrelied’ Upon Documents From Prosecution At Stage Of Framing Charges: Supreme Court
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the orders directing it to produce some unrelied upon documents.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that an accused is entitled to the documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape its defence, and the accused can use the documents that are not relied upon by the prosecuting agency at the appropriate stage of trial.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the orders directing it to produce some ‘unrelied upon documents' at the stage of framing of charges.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “Debendra Nath Padhi held that ‘insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 CrPC, would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence’ (sic. para25), whereas in Sarla Gupta and Another, a co-ordinate Bench found that these observations are in the context of what constitutes ‘the record of the case for the purpose of Section 27 CrPC’ (sic-para44). However, in paragraph 68.4, Sarla Guptaal so holds as under: ‘......Though the accused will be entitled to a list of documents, objects, exhibits, etc. that are not relied upon by the ED at the stage of framing of charge, in ordinary course, the accused is not entitled to seek copies of the said documents at the stage of framing of charges.’
“With respect to clause (f), it is stated by the CBI that only the Minutes of 11th meeting is relied upon in the case. The respondent’s contention is that there are other Minutes which would absolve him from criminal culpability as alleged against him. The said documents are sought for by specific dates mentioned, as is seen from the above extract from the first order passed by the Special Court and if they are available in the voluminous records which have been permitted to be examined by the accused, then necessarily the production could be sought for as directed by us, herein above, at the appropriate stage”, it added.
Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V. Raju represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Arvind Kumar Gupta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The accused (respondent) filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking certain documents, which was allowed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. The CBI filed a compliance report producing certain documents, resisting the production of certain others and asserting that some of them are not in its possession. Another application filed by the accused resulted in an order which was affirmed in the impugned order and challenged by the CBI.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, stated, “Be that as it may, we need not look at the aforesaid decisions but would only proceed on the premise that the accused is entitled to the documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape its defence; but at what stage could the documents be sought for, is the question arising, which has to be looked at on the specific documents sought for.”
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the seizure memos covered under clause (a) had been produced. “With respect to (b), (c) and (d), those are the registers maintained by the CBI and the source information, which cannot be divulged. The accused also has not insisted upon it having withdrawn his request for the same”, it added.
The Bench noted that the CBI had permitted examination of documents mentioned in clause (e), since it was voluminous. The Bench clarified that the accused could examine such documents and seek production of the specific document required at the appropriate time, when the appropriate witness is being examined either by the prosecution or the defence, for which purpose the CBI shall keep the files ready at the time of trial.
The Bench suggested that the CBI could permit the accused or his authorized representative to specify the particular document required at the time of inspection; reduced to writing and signed by both parties, which shall also be produced before the Trial Court without any delay, and the documents specified alone need be kept available in the Court at the time of trial.
The Bench also stated, “As far as clause (g), (h) and (i), the CBI categorically states that those are not available with them. With respect to the documents sought for in clause (j), it is the submission of the CBI that those persons were not arrayed as accused and their appointments, if at all, would not in any manner exculpate the accused. Those which are not available with the CBI necessarily cannot be produced by them.”
Thus, the Bench disposed of the appeal by asking the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with such directions and setting aside the impugned orders to facilitate an expeditious trial.
Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1064)
Appearance
Appellant: Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V. Raju, Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, AOR Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocates Annam Venkatesh, Samrat Goswami, Ishan Kapoor
Respondent: Senior Advocate Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocates Abhiesumat Gupta, Shrey Tanwar, Ashish Singh, Yugansh Mittal