Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court

"Though the accused will be entitled to a list of documents, objects, exhibits, etc. that are not relied upon by the ED at the stage of framing of charge, in ordinary course, the accused is not entitled to seek copies of the said documents at the stage of framing of charges." Supreme Court, in an order dated September 25, 2026, has clarified the procedural boundaries regarding an accused's right to seek production of documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that while an accused is entitled to documents to shape their defence, the timing of such production is critical and does not automatically entitle the accused to obtain copies of 'unrelied' upon documents at the stage of framing of charges.

Clarifying The Scope Of Section 91 CrPC

The matter reached the Apex Court through a challenge by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against an order directing it to produce 'unrelied' upon documents during the charge-framing stage in a corruption case. The respondent-accused had initially moved an application under Section 91 CrPC, which was allowed by the Special Judge, leading to a protracted dispute over the production of various registers, seizure memos, and internal committee meeting minutes.

Determination Of The Appropriate Stage For Production

The core legal question before the court was whether the accused has an absolute right to compel the prosecution to produce documents, including those not relied upon, prior to the commencement of trial. The court examined conflicting precedents, notably State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi and Sarla Gupta and Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, to determine the timing of such disclosure.

Court Distinguishes Between Inspection And Production

The bench emphasized that the accused’s right to access evidence must be balanced against the procedural sanctity of the trial. The court noted that for voluminous documents, the prosecution can facilitate inspection rather than immediate production of copies, ensuring the trial proceeds without unnecessary delays.

Prosecution Not Required To Hand Over Confidential Source Data

Regarding specific requests for source information reports and internal registers, the court held that these are often privileged or irrelevant to the specific charges. The bench noted that the prosecution cannot be compelled to disclose confidential source identities or internal administrative documents that do not form part of the case against the accused.

"The accused could examine such documents and seek for production of the specific document required at the appropriate time, when the appropriate witness is being examined either by the prosecution or the defence."

Ensuring Expeditious Trial Proceedings

The court directed that where documents are voluminous, the CBI must permit the accused to inspect them in the presence of authorized representatives. If the accused identifies specific documents, these must be reduced to writing, signed by both parties, and produced before the Trial Court to ensure they are available at the time of trial without stalling the framing of charges.

Right To Defence Evidence Must Be Appropriately Invoked

Regarding minutes of committee meetings sought by the accused, the court observed that if such documents are not in the possession of the investigating agency, the accused is not without a remedy. The court clarified that the accused may, in such instances, invoke the Right to Information Act, 2005, or summon a witness during the stage of defence evidence, subject to the Trial Court's assessment of their evidentiary value.

Final Directions And Setting Aside Of Impugned Orders

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the CBI and set aside the impugned orders of the Trial Court. The bench held that the trial must proceed expeditiously, and the production of documents must be restricted to those necessary, ensuring that the trial process is not derailed by premature and unfettered demands for discovery.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2026