2017 (8) TMI 1693 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court grants application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., stresses importance of documents for fair trial

Shivendra Dhakre Versus Shri Narendra Sharma

The High Court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of the documents to establish innocence. The ... Rejection of application preferred by the petitioner as accused under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act - application preferred by the petitioner, rejected, mainly on the ground that petitioner cannot seek document under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. during cross examination of complainant - HELD THAT:- It appears that the complainant has categorically admitted the fact that he is submitting income tax returns for last 3 to 4 years and he has handed over a sum of Rs.86 lacs in cash to the petitioner. The amount as mentioned in the complaint is a huge amount and in all probability in usual course of business either, is reflected in the accounts book, bank account, income tax return etc., therefore, petitioner moved an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. so that controversy can get clarity in respect of factual averments. Therefore, petitioner was right in moving the application seeking those documents on record to confront the complainant about the statement made by him vis a vis documents. Whether petitioner could have availed of such opportunity under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. while confronting the complainant? - HELD THAT:- The trial Court has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi [2004 (11) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that remedy of application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is not available to the accused at the time of framing of charge. In the fact situation of the case, trial Court has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. Once the necessity and desirability of documents to be summoned has been established then the trial Court ought to have called the documents to confront the witnesses. For doing complete justice between the parties, it is imperative that petitioner be allowed to confront the complainant by the documents to be summoned in defence of the accused. Matter is remanded back to the trial Court for consequential follow up action to summon the documents as mentioned in the application preferred by petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. while affording opportunity to confront the complainant with the aid and support of those documents - Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Rejection of application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by trial Court.2. Availability of remedy under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. during cross-examination.3. Interpretation of the right of the accused to produce material at the stage of framing of charge.4. Necessity and desirability of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for establishing innocence.5. Ensuring a fair trial and confronting witnesses with relevant documents.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the trial Court's rejection of the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The respondent/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner. The petitioner sought bank statements, PAN card copy, and income tax returns of the complainant to establish innocence. The trial Court dismissed the application, stating it was premature. The High Court found that the documents were necessary to clarify factual averments and remanded the matter for summoning the documents to confront the complainant.2. The issue revolved around whether the petitioner could avail of the remedy under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. during cross-examination. The trial Court held that such application could only be made when the accused's evidence started, not during cross-examination. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the documents sought were crucial for clarity in the case. The High Court referred to judgments highlighting the importance of confronting witnesses with relevant documents during cross-examination to establish innocence.3. The interpretation of the right of the accused to produce material at the stage of framing of charge was crucial. The High Court cited precedents clarifying that the accused does not have the right to produce material at the framing of charge stage. The necessity and desirability of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for establishing innocence were emphasized, and the High Court stressed the importance of fair trial principles under Article 21 of the Constitution.4. The High Court highlighted the necessity and desirability of the documents sought by the petitioner to establish innocence. The documents were deemed relevant to adjudicate the financial capacity of the complainant and test the authenticity of claims. The court emphasized that denial of a fair trial amounts to injustice and that the accused should be allowed to confront witnesses with relevant documents to ensure a fair trial.5. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the trial Court's order, allowed the petitioner's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., and remanded the matter for summoning the necessary documents. The court emphasized the importance of confronting witnesses with relevant documents to ensure a fair trial and establish innocence effectively.