Accused may inspect unrelied documents and seek specific production at the appropriate stage of trial.

The accused applied under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), for documents including unrelied-upon material, registers, committee minutes and other records.

The Special Court allowed the application, and, after the CBI filed a compliance report resisting production of some documents or stating that they were unavailable, made a further order on 18 July 2022.

The High Court affirmed that order.

The CBI appealed, challenging the directions to produce documents at the charge-framing stage.

Before the Supreme Court, the accused stated that he no longer sought the source-information records or case diaries.

1. Whether, and at what stage, an accused may seek access to unrelied-upon documents held by the prosecuting agency.

2. Whether the CBI could be directed to produce documents that it stated were unavailable or confidential, and how the accused could obtain documents identified during inspection of voluminous unrelied-upon material.

Section 91 CrPC provides for summons or production of documents or other things necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, the Court stated that an accused’s entitlement to seek an order under Section 91 ordinarily arises at the defence stage;

Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement discussed that observation in the context of the record considered at the charge-framing stage and stated that, ordinarily, an accused is not entitled to copies of unrelied-upon documents at that stage.

The Court did not resolve the scope of those precedents, proceeding instead on the premise that an accused is entitled to documents available with the prosecuting agency to prepare a defence; the stage for seeking particular documents depends on the documents sought.

The Court distinguished between material held by the CBI and material it said was unavailable or confidential.

It accepted that the seizure memos had been produced, while the accused had withdrawn his request for the CBI registers and source information.

For the voluminous unrelied-upon documents, the accused could inspect them and identify specific documents for production when the relevant witness was examined; alternatively, the parties could record and sign the identified documents during inspection, with those documents then made available at trial.

If the specified committee minutes were among the records available for inspection, the accused could seek them through that process; if unavailable with the CBI, he could obtain and prove them in his defence, with their evidentiary value left to the Trial Court.

The CBI could not be required to produce records it stated were unavailable.

The CBI was to keep the relevant files available for inspection and trial, and documents specifically identified through inspection were to be produced without delay; the accused could independently obtain unavailable documents and prove them in defence.

The appeal was disposed of.