UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Accused's Right to Invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. Arises at Defense Stage, Not During Charge Framing: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, clarified the legal boundaries regarding the invocation of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by an accused. The bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal set aside the High Court of Rajasthan's order which directed immediate decisions on applications for summoning call details in criminal cases, specifically under the NDPS Act.

Legal Point: The legal crux of this judgment revolves around the appropriate stage at which an accused can invoke Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to seek production of documents or other things necessary for the case. The State of Rajasthan challenged the High Court's order, arguing that the accused's right to invoke Section 91 typically arises at the defence stage and not during the charge framing stage.

Facts and Issues: Swarn Singh @ Baba, the respondent, facing trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), applied to summon the call details of the Seizure Officer and some police officials. The application was rejected by the Trial Court but later allowed by the High Court of Rajasthan, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Court's Assessment on Legal Points and Issues: Justice Trivedi, referring to the precedent in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), noted that, “The necessity or desirability [of a document] is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made.” The Court emphasized that the accused's entitlement to seek an order under Section 91 generally does not come until the stage of defence.

The Court also cited Nitya Dharmananda Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2018) to highlight the court's obligation to justice but maintained that Section 91 cannot be invoked by the accused at the charge framing stage.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directive and allowed the criminal appeal of the State. It was clarified that the respondent-accused is at liberty to file the application at the appropriate stage, without the Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: 12th February 2024

State of Rajasthan Vs. Swarn Singh @ Baba

Latest Legal News