Section 91 CrPC cannot compel production of CCTV footage already overwritten and unavailable.

The petitioner, facing proceedings under Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, sought under Section 91 CrPC production of police-station CCTV footage recorded from 4:00 p.m. on 15 June 2023 to 10:00 p.m. on 16 June 2023.

The prosecution opposed the application, stating that the footage had been overwritten in June 2024 under the ordinary retention cycle and was unavailable when the application was filed on 29 August 2024.

The Sessions Court dismissed the application on 15 November 2024; the petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.

1. Whether the Court could direct production under Section 91 CrPC of CCTV footage that was no longer in existence or available when the application was filed.

2. Whether the asserted relevance of the footage to the petitioner’s defence could justify an order for its production despite its unavailability.

Section 91 CrPC empowers a Court, or the officer in charge of a police station, to require production of a document or other thing necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

The power presupposes that the material sought exists and is capable of production; it cannot compel production of material that is no longer in existence or available with the person from whom it is sought.

Relevance and availability are distinct considerations, and relevance alone cannot support a production order where the material is unavailable.

The footage had been sought more than one year after it was recorded, and the prosecution stated that it had been overwritten in June 2024, before the application was filed.

Because Section 91 requires the material to be available for production, the Court held that the trial court could not direct production of the footage.

The Court did not assess the footage’s relevance or evidentiary value, reasoning that such assessment would serve no purpose once the footage was unavailable.

It also observed that preservation and production should have been sought while the footage remained within its retention period.

The petition was dismissed; the order did not prevent the petitioner from raising any other defence available in law.