Baijnath Singh Ghuraiya vs State of M.P.

C.D. Saxena, Judge

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the trial court may be directed to summon the statements of the material eye-witnesses recorded by the police during investigation, which were suppressed by the prosecution and not produced at the time of submitting charge-sheet in the court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner earlier moved an application u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. for calling the statements of the aforesaid witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. including the statements recorded in Marg enquiry u/s 174 of Cr.P.C., before the trial court, but his prayer was rejected without applying its mind and considering the provisions of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. under the impugned order, hence, this petition.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. summons for production of such statements, recorded during investigation can be issued by the Court and under a written order, an officer-in-charge of the police station can also be directed for production thereof. It is further argued that this section presupposes that when the documents are not produced, process may be initiated to compel production thereof by the court for the just decision of the case.

Thus, by considering the matter from any angle, this court is of the view that the said statements referred to above are necessary for the purposes of proper adjudication of the matter and to arrive at just and proper conclusion in the trial. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial court in proper perspective, while rejecting the application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner herein. Absolutely, no proper reasons are assigned by the trial court to conclude as to how the statements to be called for are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding this case.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner u/s 91 of Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 11/11/11 is quashed. The petition stands hereby allowed. The application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. It is directed that the learned trial court shall summon the statements mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner through the Investigating Agency and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made during the course of this order. Let a copy of this court be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance.