Supreme Court limits accused’s right to demand copies of unrelied documents at charge stage, At the stage of framing of charge, accused may inspect voluminous unrelied materials and seek specific documents later during trial; CBI cannot be compelled to produce records not in its possession.
The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of an accused person’s right to seek documents from the prosecution at the stage of framing of charges, holding that while an accused may be entitled to know or inspect unrelied-upon documents available with the prosecuting agency, he cannot ordinarily insist on copies of all such materials at that preliminary stage.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling while hearing an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against orders of the trial court and the High Court directing production of certain unrelied documents sought by the accused, Anil Dixit, in a criminal case.
The accused had moved an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking a wide range of documents, including seizure memos, registers maintained by the CBI, source information records, minutes of meetings, videography of committee meetings, technical bid papers, and appointment files of certain firms. Some of these documents had not been relied upon by the prosecution in the charge sheet.
The CBI argued that several of the requested documents were either confidential, irrelevant, not part of the case record, or not available with the agency at all. It also contended that some of the documents were voluminous and could only be inspected, not copied wholesale at the charge stage.
The Supreme Court accepted this position in substantial part. The Court held that even if an accused is entitled to documents in the possession of the prosecuting agency to prepare his defence, the real issue is the stage at which such documents can be demanded. Ordinarily, the Court said, copies of all unrelied-upon documents cannot be demanded at the stage of framing of charges. Where the documents are voluminous, the accused may inspect them and later seek production of specific documents when the relevant prosecution or defence witness is examined during trial.
The Bench also suggested a practical procedure: the accused or his authorised representative may identify specific documents during inspection, reduce that request into writing, and sign it along with the prosecution. Only those specified documents would then need to be kept available before the trial court.
On the disputed documents, the Court noted that seizure memos had already been produced. As for the CBI’s daily diary register, FIR register, dispatch register, and source information, the accused had withdrawn the request or the materials were confidential and not required to be disclosed. For the voluminous unrelied documents, the Court permitted inspection rather than automatic supply of copies.
Regarding minutes of various Building Committee meetings, the Court observed that if such documents exist in the records and are relevant to the defence, the accused may seek their production at the appropriate stage during trial. If they are not with the CBI, the accused may independently procure them, including through the Right to Information Act, 2005, or prove them through a defence witness, subject to their evidentiary value being assessed by the trial court.
The Court further held that documents not in the possession of the CBI cannot be directed to be produced by it. It set aside the impugned orders and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with its directions so that the trial may move forward expeditiously.
The judgment reinforces the principle that while fair trial rights remain important, the accused cannot use Section 91 CrPC to delay proceedings by demanding wholesale copies of all unrelied material at the charge-framing stage.
Bottom Line:
At the stage of framing of charge, accused may be entitled to know or inspect unrelied upon documents available with prosecuting agency, but ordinarily cannot insist on copies of all such documents at that stage - Voluminous unrelied documents may be inspected and specific documents can be sought at appropriate stage during trial - Documents not in possession of CBI cannot be directed to be produced.
Statutory provision(s): Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2988291
