IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8865 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SRI C.J.KRISHNAKUMAR S/O. C.S.JANARDANA RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O. TAHASILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 582240. … PETITIONER (BY SRI K.B.ONKARA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU – 582240. REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SPECIAL CASE NO.30/2013 ON 02.12.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned counsel for petitioner is absent. Heard learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 02.12.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions & Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru in Special Case (Corruption) No.30/2013, whereby the application filed by petitioner/accused under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., was dismissed.
3. Before framing charges, accused moved the above application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., seeking an order for production of certified copies of the original documents seized by Lokayuktha Police and the original case diary maintained by the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Station, Chikkamagaluru. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by a considered order dated 02.12.2015.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of STATE OF ORISSA VS. DEBENDRA NATH PADHI [AIR 2005 SC 359 (1)] has observed that:
“P25: Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is ‘necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code’. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the Court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning the production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of nay document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.”
In view of the legal position elucidated in the above decision, impugned order does not call for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Resultantly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR