Pre-charge disclosure under Section 91 CrPC remains limited; accused cannot demand unrelied-upon investigative material as of right.

At the pre-charge stage, Section 91 CrPC may be invoked only for documents that are necessary or desirable for the proceeding then in issue, and not to gather defence material from the police file. The Delhi HC held that the accused had no indefeasible right to production of final reports or internal investigative opinions not relied upon by the prosecution, since such material was neither part of the prosecution case nor expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It also noted that transfer of investigation before filing of any charge sheet did not amount to impermissible reinvestigation, and no manifest jurisdictional error was shown to justify writ interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the pre-charge stage, the accused could invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to compel production of final reports and internal investigative opinions not relied upon by the prosecution, and whether the refusal to do so warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is wide, but its exercise depends on whether the document is necessary or desirable having regard to the stage of the proceedings and the purpose for which production is sought. At the stage of framing of charge or pre-charge evidence, the accused cannot ordinarily seek material to establish defence, because the court is then concerned with the prosecution material on record. The final reports sought were only the opinions of the investigating officer, not statements of fact or expert opinions within Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and they were not relied upon by the prosecution. The accused has no indefeasible right to every document in the police file, and the right of disclosure remains limited. The transfer of investigation before filing of any charge sheet did not amount to impermissible reinvestigation, and no manifest jurisdictional error was shown to justify certiorari.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to production of the requested final reports under Section 91 at that stage, and the writ challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used by an accused at the pre-charge stage to obtain documents not relied upon by the prosecution unless their production is necessary or desirable for the proceeding then in issue; the accused has no absolute right to the entire police file.

---