OM PRAKASH SHARMA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DELHI

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 24-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OM PRAKASH SHARMA 
~ 
v. 
·-
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DELHI 
APRIL 24, 2000 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.) 
Criminal Law : 
~. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
c 
Sections 227, 22 8, 239 and 240-Framing of charge-Standard of proof-
Reliable material-Pmduction of-Held: Not the same as that required at the 
final stage to decide whether to frame the charge or discharge the accused. 
Therefore, accused can produce any reliable material at the framing of the 
charge stage which affects the very sustainability of the case. 
D 
Section 91-Documents-"Necessary or desirable"-Production of-
Issue of summons for-Power of court-Scope and ambit of-Application of 
accused to summon certain documents rejected-Validity of Held : Courts 
power to issue summons is unlimited-Superior cou11 will interfere only if the 
trial court has not exen:ised its discretion judiciously and judicially or if there 
-+ 
E 
is gross or improper failure to exen:ise jurisdiction which is <jemonstrably 
unreasonable-In the cin:umstances of the case, interference of Supreme Court 
with the rejection of the application not called for. 
Appellant made an application before the Special Judge under Sec-
tion 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for summoning and produc-
F 
ti on of documents enumerated in the application to show that the appellant 
had not shown any favour to persons commonly known as Jain Brothers or 
...-
to any person for that matter in the course of discharge of his duties while 
working as DIG, CBI, and that the present action against the appellant was 
vitiated on account of malafides on the part of the CBI, which was alleged to 
G 
bear animus against the appellant. 
The Special Judge held that none of the documents sought to be 
-,;.( 
summoned would help to show that the case of the prosecution was improb-
able or unworthy of even a trial and that summoning them at that stage of 
the proceedings was meant by the appellant to delay the proceedings 
H 
initiated by the CBI. 
188 
O.P. SHARMA v. C.B.I. DELHI 
189 
~ 
In revision the High Court held that the exercise of discretion by the 
A 
____,.... 
Trial Judge in disallowing the claim was neither unjust nor unreasonable 
nor improper and the order was held to be neither illegal nor vitiated by 
any infirmity, so as to call for interference, in exercise of the revisional 
-- -
jurisdiction of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The powers conferred under Section 91 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, 1973 are enabling in nature aimed at arming the Court or 
any officer in charge of a Police Station concerned to enforce and to ensure 
the production of any document or other things 'necessary or desirable' for c 
the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under 
the Code, by issuing a summons or a written order to those in possession of 
such material. The language of Section 91 would, no doubt, indicate the 
width of the powers to be unlimited but the in-built limitation inherent therein 
takes its colour and shape from the stage or point of time of its exercise, 
commensurately with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of 
D 
necessity and desirability, to fulfil the task or achieve the object. The ques-
tion at the present stage of the proceedings before the Trial Court would be 
to address itself to find whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding to 
the next stage against the accused. H the accused could produce any reliable 
material even at that stage which might totally affect even the every 
E 
'sustainability of the case, a refusal to even look into the materials so pro-
duced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise in futility at 
-
the expense of valuable judicial/public time. It is trite law that the standard 
of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be insisted upon atthe 
stage where the consideration is to be confined to find out a prima facie case 
F 
and decide whether it is necessary to proceed to the next stage offraming the 
charges and making the accused to stand trial for the same. This Court has 
already cautioned against undertaking a roving enquiry into the pros and 
cons of the case by weighing the evidence or collecting materials, during the 
..... _ 
course or after trial. Ultimately, this would always depend upon the facts of 
each case and it would be difficult to lay down a rule ofuniversal application 
G 
;i..... 
and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.