2025 (6) TMI 1896 - HC - SEBI

Revisional application - production of documents by prosecution authorities u/s 91 of the CrPC - right to demand the official documents of SEBI to dispose of the discharge petition - appropriate stage the accused can demand copies of the documents - interpretation of rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - Both parties have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Gupta Anr. vs Directorate of Enforcement 2025 (5) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT (LB) . In the present case it is clearly seen that the copies of documents prayed for by the accuseds/opposite parties herein have been annexed to the writ application and u/s 91 Cr. P.C. by the accuseds/ opposite parties themselves. Two of the documents at number 10 and 11 are also available in the public domain. Order dated 30.06.2023 was passed rejecting the petitioners/ complainants prayer for recall of order dated 09.02.2023 allowing the application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. filed by the accuseds/opposite parties herein. The application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. stands rejected as the same is not necessary at this stage as discussed and is thus not maintainable.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the scope and applicability of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) concerning the production of documents by prosecution authorities, the rights of the accused to access documents not relied upon by the prosecution, and the stage at which such requests can be made. Additionally, the interplay between provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, and related regulations, as well as the procedural safeguards ensuring a fair trial, were examined.

The first issue concerns whether the accused persons are entitled to obtain certain official documents from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) under Section 91 Cr.P.C., despite the prosecution's contention that all relied-upon documents have already been furnished. The second issue addresses the legal framework governing disclosure of documents, especially those not relied upon by the prosecution, and the procedural stage appropriate for such disclosure. The third issue pertains to the correctness of the trial court's order allowing the accused's petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and directing SEBI to produce the documents.

Regarding the entitlement to documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and authoritative precedents, notably the Supreme Court's rulings in the case of Sarla Gupta & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement and related decisions. These judgments emphasize the necessity for prosecution to furnish not only documents relied upon under Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. but also to provide a list of documents and materials in their possession that are not relied upon, thereby enabling the accused to seek production of such documents if necessary for a fair trial.

The Court noted that the accused had filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of sixteen specific documents, many of which were annexed to their writ petition and already in their possession. Some documents were also publicly available. The prosecution contended that all documents relied upon had been supplied. The trial court's order dated 09.02.2023 allowed the accused's application, directing SEBI to produce the documents. The trial court reasoned that these documents were in SEBI's custody and no adequate explanation was provided for withholding them, and that compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. did not preclude an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., as the two provisions serve different purposes.

In its analysis, the Court contrasted the procedural requirements under Sections 207 and 91 Cr.P.C. Section 207 mandates the prosecution to supply to the accused the documents and statements relied upon to enable preparation of defence, whereas Section 91 empowers the Court to summon any document or thing necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Cr.P.C. The Court acknowledged the right of the accused to seek documents not relied upon by the prosecution but emphasized that such right must be exercised at an appropriate stage and must be necessary for the defence.

The Court further scrutinized the factual matrix, observing that the documents sought were already annexed to the accused's writ petition and thus accessible to them. The documents numbered 10 and 11 were also in the public domain. Hence, the direction to SEBI to produce these documents was redundant. The Court relied on the principles enunciated in the cited Supreme Court decisions, which delineate that while the accused has the right to access documents not relied upon, such requests must be justified and made at a proper stage of the proceedings.

The Court also considered the prosecution's argument that compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. was complete and that the accused's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was unnecessary and premature. The Court agreed with this position, holding that the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable at this stage and that the trial court's order allowing it was erroneous.

Addressing the competing arguments, the Court balanced the accused's right to a fair trial and adequate defence with the prosecution's duty to disclose relevant material. It underscored that the right to a fair trial includes the right to defend by producing evidence and documents but does not extend to an unfettered right to demand all documents in the prosecution's possession irrespective of their relevance or stage of trial. The Court emphasized procedural propriety and the necessity of judicial discretion in ordering production of documents.

The Court concluded that the trial court's orders dated 09.02.2023 and 30.06.2023 allowing the accused's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and directing SEBI to produce the documents were set aside and quashed. The application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was rejected as unnecessary and not maintainable at the current stage. The Court directed the trial court to first consider and dispose of the accused's application under Section 277 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, thereby ensuring due process.

Significant holdings include the Court's reiteration of the principles from the Supreme Court's decisions, notably:

"The accused has the right to apply for the supply of documents not relied upon by the prosecution by making an application to the Court. The question is at what stage the accused can demand copies of the documents."

Further, the Court emphasized:

"A fair trial is a part of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to a fair trial of the accused includes the right to defend. The right to defend consists of the right to lead the defence evidence by examining the witnesses and producing the documents."

However, the Court clarified that such rights are subject to procedural safeguards and judicial discretion, and that premature or unnecessary applications for production of documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be rejected.

In sum, the Court established that while the accused's right to access documents is protected, the trial court must ensure that such rights are exercised in a manner consistent with procedural law and fairness, avoiding redundancy and unwarranted delays in trial. The judgment underscores the nuanced balance between disclosure obligations of the prosecution and the accused's right to a fair trial, affirming that judicial oversight is crucial in regulating document production requests under Section 91 Cr.P.C.