The J&K&L HC while dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.Cwherein the Petitioner had assailed the order of the Trial Court (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu) by virtue of which an Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C filed by the Petitioner was rejected, observed that the law is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only supposed to restrict its consideration to the charge-sheet and the material produced with it by the prosecution. The Court further observed that Section 91 Cr.P.C does not permit the accused to lead his defence and prove his innocence even at the stage of framing of charge, holding, “If such course is permitted, the Court will have to conduct a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge which is not permissible in law.”
The Petitioner in the case at hand was facing criminal trial in an FIR registered under Sections 8/20/29 of NDPS Act before the Trial Court, and with a view to contest framing of charge, had filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C to call for production of certain documents from the prosecution. The Application was filed on the ground that the entire case is staged up by the Respondents, and the Petitioner along with the co-accused are suffering incarceration for more than ten months for no fault of their.
The Trial Court came to reject the application by holding that at the time of framing of charge, an accused does not have a right to produce any material or documents to contest framing of charge, for, the charge is required to be framed solely on the basis of challan and the material produced by the prosecution along with it. It was this order that came under challenge before the High Court.
The High Court, while interpreting Section 91, Cr.P.C, held that the provision does not confer any right on the accused to produce a document in his possession to prove his defence. It held that the Section is wide enough to enable a Court or any officer in-charge of a Police Station to seek production thereof, which power is, however, not unlimited and there are “inbuilt limitations as to the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurate with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfill the task or achieve the object”.
The Court, further, relying upon the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568], Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others [(2008) 14 SCC 1], and Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin vs Sri Gopal SheelumReddy, [(2018) 2 SCc 93], as well as Rule 4 of the Draft Criminal Rules and Practice, 2021 observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only supposed to restrict its consideration to the charge-sheet and the material produced with it by the prosecution. However, the Court observed, that even at the stage of framing an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C by the accused would lie, “if the accused makes out a case that there is a document or material of sterling quality lying with the I.O, but has not been submitted to the Court along with the charge-sheet and such document or material is necessary and desirable for the purposes of framing of charge”.
The Court further observed, “Such material and document could be amongst the material and document which, though, was available with or produced before the I.O during investigation, yet the same was not relied upon by him in the final report”. However, noting that in the instant case it is not the grievance of the petitioner that some documents or material produced before I.O during investigation or otherwise available with him has not been produced in the Court along with challan and that such document or material is necessary and desirable for framing of charge, but, from the application what transpires is that that the petitioner wants to lead his defence and prove his innocence even at the stage of framing of charge, which is impermissible in law as it would amount to conduct a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge.
