[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sk. Abid vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party (S) on 30 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.970 of 2026
Sk. Abid .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Raghunath Biswal,
Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
30.03.2026
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to set aside the
order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Cuttack in 2(a)CC No.13 of 2026.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 10.02.2026 at about 06:40 A.M.,
the Excise Officer during patrolling received reliable information
regarding transportation of contraband ganja in a vehicle (Grey KIA
SELTOS). Thereafter, the officer claims to have reduced the said
information into writing under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act and
intimated the same to his superior officer before apprehending the said
vehicle and accused person, then all the raiding team officials
proceeded to the spot along with staff members, at about 07:00 A.M.,
the officials allegedly intercepted a vehicle bearing NO.OD 02 BT 7412
Grey KIA SELTOS near Peyton Sahi area and detained the present
accused person. It is alleged that upon search of the vehicle, two white
basta containing ganja were recovered from the back seat of the vehicle.
It is further submitted that upon examination, each basta was found
containing 25 kilograms of ganja, summed up to 50 kilograms. The
alleged seizure, sampling and sealing were conducted at the spot and
the accused was arrested thereafter.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that no contraband
article was seized from the possession or conscious possession of the
Petitioner from any vehicle. The alleged contraband was in fact seized
from the house of one Ayub khan (Owner). During the course of the
alleged search in the house the accused was not at all present nor does
he knew anything relating to the concealment, as the accused was in his
house at Kesharpur with his wife and children. The alleged contraband
has been seized from the house of Ayub Khan and not from any vehicle
at Peyton Sahi as falsely stated in the PR No. 571 of 2025- 26, registered
at E.I. &E.B, Unit-II (CD), Dist- Cuttack. The petitioner had filed an
application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before
the learned court below, praying for a direction to the Investigating
Officer to collect/ seize and produce the CCTV footage of the building/
premises connected with the alleged occurrence, as the same
constitutes vital electronic evidence relevance for the just adjudication
of the case. However, the learned court below vide order dated
24.02.2026 rejected the petition filed under Section 91 of the CrPC /94 of
BNSS without properly considering the relevance and necessity of the
CCTV footage for just adjudication of the case.
5. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
"The investigation of this case is still at its' nascent
stage. At this stage, the learned defence counsel has urged
the Court to issue direction to one Ayub Khan to produce
the footage of the CCTV installed outside of his house and
the related photographs of dated 10.02.2026, by exercising
jurisdiction U/sec.94 BNSS or Section 91 Cr.P.C. On
perusal of the affidavit sworn by the wife of the accused it
transpires that the said Ayub Khan has already handed over
the CCTV footage/photographs to her. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and as the investigation of this
case is still under progress, this court feels that it is not
necessary or desirable at this stage to issue direction to
Ayub Khan by exercising jurisdiction U/sec.94 BNSS.
Moreso, in the case of Debendranath Padhi (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even at the time of
framing of charge or taking cognizance the accused has no
right to produce any document in view of the clear mandate
of Sections 227 and 228 in Chapter-18 and sections 239
and 240 in Chapter-19. For better appreciation, the relevant
paragraph is reproduced as hereunder:
"25. Any document or other thing envisaged
under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be
produced on fining 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 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 and 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 any
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."
Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Debendranath Padhi
(supra), the present application preferred U/sec.94 BNSS is
rejected being devoid of merit."
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and on going through the order passed by the learned court
below, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated
24.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Cuttack in 2(a)CC No.13 of 2026 so as to warrant interference by this
Court.
7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is dismissed.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
