Accused Cannot Invoke S.91 CrPC To Compel Prosecution To Produce Things At The Stage Of Framing Of Charge: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the courts cannot issue processes under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to compel the production of things/documents based on the application made by the accused at the stage of framing of charges.

The short question before the Supreme Court was whether the accused could file an application for the production of things/documents in possession of prosecution at the stage of framing of charge to exercise its right to defence before the initiation of the trial.

Answering negatively, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, while relying on the Debendra Nath Padhi case, observed that the accused's entitlement to seek an order for the production of things or documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence.

Briefly put, the accused was facing a trial before the Trial Court for the offences under the NDPS Act. The respondent-accused had filed an application before the Trial Court for summoning the call details of the Seizure Officer and some other police officials for the date of seizure.

The trial court rejected the application, against which the accused approached the High Court.

The High Court had allowed the accused application and directed all Courts in the State of Rajasthan that whenever an application is moved to summon the call details by the accused during the criminal proceedings, the same shall not be deferred and will be decided forthwith.

It is against the impugned order of the High Court that the criminal appeal was preferred by the State before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Made By the Parties

While placing reliance on Debendra Nath Padhi Judgment, it was argued by the appellant state that the accused cannot exercise the right to defence by invoking the provision of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to compel the state for the production of call details at the stage of framing of charges. In other words, the accused cannot invoke and would not have the right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge.

On the contrary, it was argued by the respondent accused that the court being under the obligation to impart justice, is not debarred from exercising its power under Section 91 Cr.P.C., if the interest of justice in a given case so requires. In other words, the accused can invoke and would have the right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge. The accused relied on the Supreme Court Judgment of Nitya Dharmananda Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy to support its contention.

Observation of The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court accepted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant state that the right to defence of the accused would only arise at the stage of trial and not at the time of framing of charge(s).

The Court has drawn reference from the Debendra Nath Padhi Judgment where the Supreme Court observed as follows:

“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… Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence.”

Further, the court observed that the accused reliance on the Nitya Dharmananda case is not helpful for the accused as “in the said decision also, it has been observed that the accused cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

“In view of the law laid down by the Three Judge Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (supra), we are inclined to accept the present appeal.”

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mrs. Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Adv. Ms. Yashika Bum, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Kulwant, Adv.

Case Details: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS SWARN SINGH @ BABA | CRIMINAL APPEAL No.856 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment