Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22447 of 2018
Applicant :- Arun Kumar
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyan Prakash, ,G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking; quashing of the order dated 05.02.2018 to the extent of rejection of application No. 7112 Kha dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption (C.B.I.), Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 49/11, [C.B.I. Vs. R.P. Mishra and Others], under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station C.B.I., Ghaziabad, and seeking a direction for the Investigating Officer to produce the documents/material collected during the course of investigation from the persons referred in paragraph no. 16.32 of charge sheet on record of the Case No. 49 of 2011 in order to enable the applicant to inspect it.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed impugning the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the learned trial court on an application being Application No. 7112 Kha dated 21.08.2017 for production of certain documents who were allegedly found by the Investigating Agency during investigation and on that basis 24 Judges/Judicial Officers got exonerated by the C.B.I. and no charge sheet came to be filed against them.
4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that these documents are necessary for the defence of the accused petitioner. The trial court has committed error of law in declining the request of the accused petitioner by rejecting the application filed by the accused petitioner to summon these documents.
5. The application would not indicate which are the documents that the C.B.I. collected and on the basis of which, 24 Judicial Officers/Judges were absolved and not charge-sheeted. Such a vague application without giving particulars of the documents, is not likely to be entertained. Section 91 Cr.P.C., of course, confers a power on the Court and the police officer to summon a document during investigation, enquiry and trial, if it is found that such a document is necessary for establishing the guilt or innocence of an accused. The documents should be definite, it cannot be a vague document. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which confers a right on an accused to summon a document in respect of a person who is not an accused. The three judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner: two of them rendered by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi reported in 2000 0 AIR (SC) 2335 and V.K. Sasikala Vs. State Represented by Superintendent of Police reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771; and one rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Puri Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) passed in Crl. Rev. P. 351/2016 & Crl.M.A. 7747/2016 and decided on 23.09.2016; have no relevance to the facts of the present case.
6. So far 39 prosecution witnesses have been examined during trial including the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the accused applicant could not reply to the specific question as to whether during examination of the I.O., the questions were put in respect of the documents which the accused applicant is seeking production in exercise of power conferred to the Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has fairly submitted that he has no idea whether any such question was put to the Investigating Officer or not. After 313 Cr.P.C. statement of an accused is recorded and when he leads evidence, he may summon a document in possession of a person/authority if he feels that such a document would favour him or strengthen his defence but the document should be definite. A vague application cannot be entertained for summoning a document whose nature, date and author, are not known.
7. In view thereof, learned trial court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction which requires any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. This petition is thus rejected being devoid of merits and substance.
9. However, it is provided that once the statement of the accused petitioner gets recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he wants to summon a definite document, he may move an appropriate application before the Court and the Court will decide the said application in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
Arun K. Singh
