Section 94 permits summoning documents during cross-examination when necessary for effective questioning.

The respondent-complainant instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner-accused.

During cross-examination, the complainant’s witness, Dipendra Bhavsar (PW-1), was questioned regarding his authority to advance money on behalf of the cooperative society. The witness stated that he could not answer without examining the society’s bye-laws. The petitioner consequently sought production of the bye-laws under Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023, for conducting an effective cross-examination. The JMFC, Kukshi, rejected the application by order dated 15 May 2026 in Complaint Case No. 40/2025. The petitioner challenged that order under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 of the CrPC.

1. Whether an accused may seek production of documents under Section 94 of the BNSS/Section 91 of the CrPC before the stage of defence evidence, where those documents are necessary for the effective cross-examination of a prosecution or complainant witness.

2. Whether the bye-laws of the cooperative society were necessary to enable the petitioner to effectively cross-examine the complainant’s witness on his authority to advance money on behalf of the society.

The Court considered Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 of the CrPC concerning the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 91 of the CrPC concerning production of documents or things necessary for an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding.

Relying on Suninder Sandha v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Criminal Appeals Nos. 5150–5151 of 2025, decided on 2 December 2025, and the principles quoted from Sarla Gupta, the Court recognised that an accused ordinarily seeks production of defence documents at the stage of entering upon defence; however, the right to a fair trial includes a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and defend the case.

The Court held that where a document is directly necessary for effective cross-examination on a material issue, its production may be directed at that stage in the interests of justice.

Although the respondent relied on Suninder Sandha to contend that an application for production of documents should be made only when defence evidence commences, the Court distinguished the present case.

The bye-laws were not sought merely as defence evidence; they were required because the complainant’s own witness had stated that he could not answer a material question concerning his authority without referring to them. Denying access to the bye-laws would therefore prevent the petitioner from effectively testing the witness’s authority, a matter relevant to the adjudication of the Section 138 complaint. The Court consequently treated production of the bye-laws as necessary to secure a fair and effective cross-examination, while leaving the trial court free to address any delay in accordance with law.

The Court limited its observations to the impugned order and left the trial court at liberty to deal with any alleged delay by the accused in accordance with law.