9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by one Sh. K.V. Singh i.e., the complainant. It had been alleged that a case was under investigation against the complainant with CBI and for showing favour to the complainant in the ongoing investigation, the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as bribe from him, which had been later reduced to 10 lakhs by the petitioner. As per the demand the bribe amount of Rs. 10 lakhs had to be given to him in two instalments of Rs 5 lakhs each, first was to be given on 04.01.2015. Since the complainant was not willing to give the bribe, he had lodged a written complaint against the petitioner herein with SP, CBI, ACU-V, New Delhi for taking necessary legal action against him. Though, Rs. 5 lakhs had been demanded in first instalment, the complainant was only able to arrange Rs. 1 lakh. After that, on the receipt of aforementioned complaint CBI constituted, a Trap team including two independent witnesses and the accused was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe amount of Rs. 1 lakh at Mayur Vihar, Delhi on 04.01.2015. 3. During interrogation, the petitioner had disclosed that he had demanded bribe on behalf of one Sh. Sanjay Jha, Investigating Officer in RC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to cross examine the complainant herein. Subsequently, petitioner had filed second application under Section 91 Cr.P.C for summoning relevant documents required for cross examination of the complainant. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.11.2019 without considering the relevancy of the documents required by the petitioner for cross examination of the complainant had dismissed the said application. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that at this stage of trial, it is relevant for the petitioner to examine certain documents related to the complainant, as the petitioner herein had filed a written complaint with the CBI to investigate into the irregularities by the complainant while he was the Zonal Manager at Dena Bank, Panchkula, Haryana. It is argued by the counsel for petitioner that these documents are important for the petitioner to examine so that questions can be put to the complainant at the stage of cross- examination. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu 2022:INSC:1177, Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Shellum Reddy 2017:INSC:1201 : (2018) 2 SCC 93, Sanjev Narula v. Woodcrafts Furnishers and Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertified copies of those documents and produce the same on the next date of hearing before this Court or if the same are not part of the charge-sheet, the CBI is directed to produce the documents in the Court and copies of the same be supplied to the applicant/accused. The application stands disposed of.". 9. This Court has gone through order dated 15.04.2019 passed by learned Trial Court and the same is reproduced as under: "After considering the submissions it is deemed appropriate that accused B.Sambi Reddy be directed to go with the concerned CBI officials to the concerned Court at Panchkula, Haryana, where the OBI official can file an application for inspection and inspect the court file with the assistance of accused so that the page number / number of the documents which were permitted to be supplied to the accused persons vide order dated 17.12.2018, can be noted and certified copies thereof can be applied for and obtain by the CBI officials. Learned Additional PP CBI to ensure compliance by communicating this order to concerned SP so that 10/ HIO or any other official of CBI is deputed to coordinate with accused B.Sambi Reddy to inspect the file pending before the CBI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-- (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority". 12. In the case of V.L.S. Finance Ltd. v. S.P. Gupta 2016:INSC:143 : (2016) 3 SCC 736, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the scope and ambit of the said provision, the same is reproduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be invoked at any stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Cr.P.C. III. This invocation can take place when the Court or the Police deems the production of documents necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under Cr.P.C. IV. The satisfaction regarding the necessity or desirability of the Court or the Police is essential for invoking this provision. V. The production of documents or other items is to be carried out before the Court if directed by the Court, or before the officer if directed by a Police Officer. 14. This Court notes that in the instant case, the petitioner herein had first moved an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C and vide order dated 17.12.2018 the application was allowed and relevant documents were to be supplied to the petitioner. After that vide order dated 15.04.2019, learned Trial Court had directed the CBI to accompany the petitioner to the concerned Court and mark the relevant documents required by the petitioner and to supply the same to him after applying for the certified copies of the same. Thereafter, again petitioner preferred a second application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the necessity of presenting documents is sin 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. In case he needs them, he can file appropriate application before the concerned Court to be provided with certified copies of those documents as they pertain to another State and move appropriate Court of law there in case he fails to get the same. 18. However, this Court notes that in the case of Manoj v. State of M.P. 2022:INSC:606 : (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has read the provision of Section 91 Cr.P.C along with Section 243 of Cr.P.C and the same is reproduced as under: 205. .In this context, a reading of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
