Official ACB source reports may be withheld from compelled disclosure under Section 124 of the Evidence Act.

The petitioner, the sole accused in a prosecution under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sought under Section 91 CrPC a direction requiring the Investigating Officer (PW.47) to produce the Scrutiny Report/Source Report prepared before registration of the case.

The request was made after the prosecution had examined PW.47 in chief and the matter was posted for cross-examination.

The trial court dismissed the application, accepting the prosecution’s claim that the report was an official communication protected by Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The petitioner challenged that order.

Whether the petitioner could compel production of the Scrutiny Report/Source Report for cross-examination under Section 91 CrPC, notwithstanding the prosecution’s claim of privilege under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Whether the trial court’s refusal to order production of the report disclosed illegality or legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a public officer cannot be compelled to disclose communications made to the officer in official confidence where the officer considers that disclosure would harm the public interest.

The Court relied on The State of A.P. v. Badapu Appanna (1962 (1) Andh WR 256), which treated the privilege as protecting public interest and applying to official communications between public officers in the discharge of their duties, and The Public Prosecutor v. Picky Syed Ismail (1973 Cri LJ 931), which reiterated that principle.

The Court also considered Brijnath Kedarnath v. State (1957 Cri LJ 188), but found it inapplicable.

PW.47 had testified that he analysed seized material, prepared the Source Information Report, and submitted it to the Director General, ACB, to obtain permission to register the case.

The Court treated that report as a communication between public officers made in the course of official duties and accepted the prosecution’s claim that disclosure would be detrimental to the public interest.

Applying Section 124 and the cited authorities, it held that the petitioner could not compel production of the report; it distinguished Brijnath Kedarnath on the ground that the communication here was between public officers seeking permission to register the crime.

It dismissed the criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS and directed that any pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.