Document summons require judicial satisfaction of necessity and a fair hearing before production is ordered.

Summons for production of documents under Section 91 CrPC must rest on a judicial determination that the material is necessary or desirable for the proceeding, and the purpose for production must be shown with reference to the stage of the case and the documents sought. A general or routine request is insufficient. Where the opposite party is already participating in the proceedings, notice and an opportunity of hearing are required before such an order is made. The impugned orders were treated as unsustainable for want of demonstrated necessity and for breach of natural justice, and the document summons were set aside with liberty to renew the request in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether summons for production of documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be issued without the Court being satisfied about their necessity or desirability and without indicating the purpose for which they are required; (ii) Whether an order under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be passed against a party already participating in the proceedings without affording notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether summons for production of documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be issued without the Court being satisfied about their necessity or desirability and without indicating the purpose for which they are required.

Analysis: The power under Section 91 is not mechanical. It is conditioned by the Court's satisfaction that the document or thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of the proceeding. The requirement must be examined with reference to the stage of the case and the purpose for which production is sought. A general request, unsupported by a list of witnesses, proposed testimony, or identification of documents linked to proof of any specific fact, does not satisfy this standard. Summoning documents cannot be allowed as a matter of routine or on a mere asking.

Conclusion: The impugned orders did not reflect the requisite judicial satisfaction and were unsustainable on the ground of absence of demonstrated necessity or desirability.

Issue (ii): Whether an order under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be passed against a party already participating in the proceedings without affording notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Where the opposite party has already joined the proceedings, fairness requires that it be heard before an order is made directing production of documents. The right to be heard is an aspect of natural justice and procedural fairness, and its denial in a criminal proceeding affects legal rights and attracts constitutional concern. The orders in question were passed without notice to the affected parties and were non-speaking in character, which rendered them vitiated.

Conclusion: The orders were passed in violation of natural justice and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The orders summoning documents were set aside, with liberty to seek fresh relief before the trial court in accordance with law and after hearing the affected parties.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be founded on a judicial determination of necessity or desirability, and where the opposite party has already appeared, an opportunity of hearing is required before summons are issued.

---