LexNITYA DHARMANANDA @ K. LENIN & ANR versus SRI GOPAL SHEELUM REDDY ALSO KNOWN AS NITHYA BHAKTANANDA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2017] 12S.C.R.118 NITYA DHARMANANDA @ K. LENIN & ANR v. SRI GOPAL SHEELUM REDDY ALSO KNOWN AS NITHYA BHAKTANANDA AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2114 of2017) DECEMBER07,2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.91 - Applicability of- Respondent charge sheeted for offences, inter alia, u/s. 376 !PC - Respondent filed application u/s.91 before trial court praying that the entire material available with the investigator, which was not made part of the chargesheet, ought to be suminoned u!s. 91 - D Application was dismissed - High Court reversed the order of trial court - On appeal, held: While ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the Court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the E F G H investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a parl of the charge sheet - However, this does not give the defence a right to invoke s.91 de hors the satisfaction of the Court at the stage of charge - Accordingly, contrary view in tlze impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is. set aside. Hardeep Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors. etc. (2014) 3 SCC 92 : [2014] 2 SCR 1 - followed. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 : (2004] Suppl. SCR 460 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 460 [2014] 2 SCR 1 referred to followed Para4 Para8 [email protected] 119 ALSO KNOWN AS NITHYABHAKTANANDA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A No.2114of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07 .2016 of the High Court ofKarnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 938 of2016 WITH Cr!. A. No. 2115 of2017. B Sidharth Luthra (AC), Shekhar Naphade, C. V. Nagesh, Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Ad vs., Devadatt Kamat, AAG, Gautam K, Ashwin Yaish, Vinod Pandey, Kuna! Awana, Sekh Zakir Hussain, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Joseph Aristotel S, Rajesh Inamdar, Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ashish Yadav, Javedur C Rahman, Aditya Bhat, Anand San jay M. Nuli, Dharm Singh, S. J. Amit, Saket Gogia, Suraj Kaushik, M/s. Nuli & Nuli, V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Md. Apzal Ansari, Mis. Aditya Bhat, Ad vs for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ORDER 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. D 2. We have heard learned counsel for the State, the complainant, the accused and the learned amicus, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate. E 3. The respondent, Gopal Sheelum Reddy alias Nithya Bhaktananda, was charge sheeted for offences, inter alia, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent approached the High Court with the prayer that the entire material available with the investigator, which was not made part of the chargesheet, ought to be summoned under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court, reversing the contrary view of the trial court, allowed the said application. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the view of F the High Court is contrary to law laid down by this Court in State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 and reiterated G in the subsequent decisions. The defence could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge so as to avoid a mini trial. 5. Learned counsel for the defence, on the other hand, submitted that if the investigator is not fair and the material of sterling quality, H 120 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. though seized during investigation and available with him, is deliberately left out from the chargesheet, there is no bar for the court to summon the said material. 6. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91. However, the court being under the obligation to impart justice and to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice in a given case so require, even ifthe accused may have no right to invoke Section 91. To exercise this power, the court is to bt' satisfied that the material available with the investigator, not made part of the chargesheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge. 7. In Debendra Nath Padhi, supra, it was observed: "25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.