https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80893 An internal departmental report used to decide whether to file a prosecution complaint was held not to be a document the accused could summon or inspect under Section 91 CrPC merely because the complaint was founded on it. The court treated the Superintendent of Police's report as confidential, distinct from the final report under Section 173 CrPC and from the limited case diary inspection right under Section 172(3) CrPC. It was not regarded as a public document or admissible opinion evidence under the Evidence Act, so disclosure was refused and the order protecting the report from production was sustained. en-us Fri, 29 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80893 An internal departmental report used to decide whether to file a prosecution complaint was held not to be a document the accused could summon or inspect under Section 91 CrPC merely because the complaint was founded on it. The court treated the Superintendent of Police's report as confidential, distinct from the final report under Section 173 CrPC and from the limited case diary inspection right under Section 172(3) CrPC. It was not regarded as a public document or admissible opinion evidence under the Evidence Act, so disclosure was refused and the order protecting the report from production was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 29 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80893