Satyaprakash Sankhala vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Instant misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC is against an order dated 18.10.2023, wherein, learned Sessions Court, Sojat, District Pali dismissed the petitioner’s (accused) revision and upheld the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned trial court.

Briefly speaking the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., at the stage of framing of charges, seeking issuance of summons to produce Roznamcha Tafteesh bearing serial no.694 dated 23.03.2017, alleging that directions for investigation contained therein are not available on record.

2.1. The learned trial court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.09.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 18.10.2023. Hence, this petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

First and foremost, let us read Section 91 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 94 of BNSS), which is as below:-

“Section 91 Summons to produce document or other thing.

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document 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.”

Section 91 Cr.P.C. thus empowers a court or an officer-in-charge of a police station to summon a document or thing necessary for the investigation, inquiry, or trial. No doubt, a trial court ought to exercise its power under Section 91 Cr.P.C., if the interest of justice in a given case so requires. However, the question arises: Can an accused invoke Section 91 at the stage of framing charges?

Answer is in the negative. Let us dwell into the reasons thereof in the succeeding part of the order.

The primary reason for this is that the stage of framing charges is not intended to be a mini-trial. It is at this point that the court determines whether the material placed before it by the prosecution is sufficient to proceed with the trial against the accused. The court does not, at this stage, conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Instead, it examines whether there is a prima facie case against the accused based on the material presented by the prosecution.

This is why the scope of judicial inquiry at the stage of framing charges is relatively narrow and limited to the material placed by the prosecution. Allowing the accused to invoke Section 91 at this point would result in a detailed examination of evidence, which is premature and not in line with the purpose of framing charges. Moreover, the invocation of Section 91 by the accused at the stage of framing charges could lead to delays in the trial process. The criminal justice system is already burdened with delays, and permitting such an action would further complicate and prolong the trial process. It could also potentially allow the accused to misuse the provision to create unnecessary obstacles in the prosecution's case.

While it is clear that the accused cannot invoke Section 91 at the stage of framing charges, it is equally important to recognize that the trial court must exercise its powers under Section 91 in the interest of justice when necessary. The court has a duty to ensure that all relevant material is before it, particularly if it has a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, this power must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the purpose of Section 91.

The court must thus balance the need to protect the rights of the accused with the need to prevent the misuse of legal provisions. The guiding principle should be the interest of justice, which requires that the trial process is fair, expeditious, and just.

To sum up, while Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. is a formidable tool for ensuring justice by the trial court, its invocation at the stage of framing charges by the accused is not permissible. The stage of framing charges is distinct and limited in scope, aimed at determining whether a prima facie case exists. Allowing the accused to invoke Section 91 at this point would undermine the purpose of this provision and lead to unnecessary delays and complications in the trial process. However, the trial court retains the discretion to exercise its powers under Section 91 when the interest of justice so requires, ensuring that the trial process remains fair and just by maintaining a balance thereof.

I am thus of the view that the learned Magistrate adopted correct course of action. There is no irregularity of any kind or any ground otherwise made out, warranting any interference by this Court.

Petition is dismissed. Stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.