Accused cannot compel production of non-charge-sheet documents during prosecution evidence without establishing necessity.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 28.05.2025 of the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali, which rejected his application to bring on record a status report dated 11.12.1995 submitted by the CBI before the Supreme Court.

The report related to the investigation into the alleged detention and subsequent killing of four persons by Punjab Police, arising from FIR No. RC-6(S)/94 dated 12.09.1994 under Sections 302, 364, 218, 120-B and 34 IPC.

The CBI filed a charge-sheet against 28 accused on 31.05.1996; charges were framed on 20.09.1997, and the trial remained pending for several decades.

At the relevant time, prosecution evidence was continuing and the Investigating Officer, PW-34, had been under cross-examination since July 2024.

The petitioner sought the status report principally for cross-examining PW-34, asserting that denial of the document violated his right to a fair trial under Article 21.

The CBI maintained that the report was an internal document submitted in separate Supreme Court proceedings, was neither a relied-upon nor an un-relied-upon document in the present case, and had never formed part of the charge-sheet.

The Court applied the principles governing production and disclosure of documents under Sections 91, 207, 233(3), 243(2) and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 528 BNSS and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Under Section 91 CrPC, production of a document is discretionary and depends upon whether it is necessary or desirable for the proceedings; the accused does not possess an absolute right to summon every document claimed to be useful.

Section 207 CrPC requires supply of the police report, FIR, witness statements and documents forwarded with the police report, but does not mandate automatic disclosure of every document that came into the investigating agency’s possession.

State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi , Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay v. L.R. Melwani and Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI establish these principles.

In Re: Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh recognise disclosure of a list of non-relied-upon material so that the accused may seek its production where necessary, but do not create an unqualified right to obtain every such document.

V.K. Sasikala v. State , Sidharth Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Nithya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy recognise access to relevant material necessary for a fair trial.

Under Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement , the accused has a stronger right to seek production of documents at the stage of entering upon defence under Sections 233(3) and 243(2) CrPC; that right is not absolute at every earlier stage, and a witness may subsequently be recalled under Section 311 CrPC if necessary.

The Court held that the status report was not part of the charge-sheet, investigation record, or relied-upon/un-relied-upon documents in the present prosecution; it had been prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court in separate proceedings pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order dated 30.08.1994.

The mere reference to the report by PW-34 during his deposition did not convert it into a prosecution document or establish its necessity for cross-examination.

Although the right to a fair trial includes access to relevant material, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how this particular report was necessary for a just decision or effective cross-examination.

Further, his substantive right to seek production in support of his defence at the stage of entering upon defence remained unaffected, with the possibility of recalling PW-34 under Section 311 CrPC if required.

The Court also balanced the petitioner’s fair-trial rights against the need to avoid further delay in a trial arising from a 1994 FIR, where the Investigating Officer had already been under cross-examination for a prolonged period.

It held that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in refusing production of the status report and that the order dated 28.05.2025 disclosed no perversity, illegality, jurisdictional error, or violation of the right to a fair trial warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.