Unrelied Documents and the Accused: Supreme Court Sets a Practical Route for Section 91 Requests in a CBI Case

Case at a glance: Faced with a CBI challenge to orders directing production of documents under Section 91 CrPC, the Supreme Court did not resolve the tension between Debendra Nath Padhi and Sarla Gupta. Instead, proceeding on the premise that the accused is entitled to the documents with the prosecuting agency to shape his defence, it went through each category requested and laid down how inspection and production should take place, to facilitate an expeditious trial.

In a CBI case registered as RC No. 12A/2014-R, the accused applied under Section 91 CrPC for a list of documents, items (a) to (j). The Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi allowed the application in 2019, and a later order of 18 July 2022 was affirmed in the impugned order. The CBI produced some documents, objected to others as confidential or unavailable, and offered inspection of voluminous records.

Before the Supreme Court, the CBI relied on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2004) 11 SC CK 0011, which observed that the accused's right to seek production under Section 91 ordinarily does not arise until the defence stage. The accused relied on Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, which recognises an entitlement to a list of unrelied documents. The accused also filed an affidavit that he was not seeking the source information or case diaries.

The Key Question Before the Court

At what stage, and for which documents, can an accused compel the prosecution to produce unrelied documents under Section 91 CrPC?

A Category-by-Category Approach

The Court said the real question was the stage and the specific documents sought, proceeding on the premise that “the accused is entitled to the documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape its defence.” Seizure memos had already been produced. Registers and source information were not to be produced, the accused having given up that request.

Voluminous unrelied documents could be inspected, and the accused could seek specific documents at the appropriate time, with the CBI keeping the files ready at trial. Building Committee minutes beyond the relied-upon meeting could be sought at the appropriate stage if found in the records, or through the RTI Act or a defence witness if not with the CBI. Documents not available with the CBI “necessarily cannot be produced by them.” The CBI's stand on the appointment files of two firms not charge-sheeted was recorded without a ruling on its merits.

What the Court Actually Held

• The Court did not resolve the conflict between Debendra Nath Padhi and Sarla Gupta.
• Unrelied documents may be inspected; specific ones may be sought at the appropriate stage and must be kept ready by the CBI.
• Source information and registers need not be produced; unavailable documents cannot be ordered produced.
• The impugned orders were set aside and the Trial Court directed to proceed as indicated.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It offers a workable template for Section 91 disputes in document-heavy prosecutions.
• It recognises the accused's interest in prosecution documents without fixing a rigid stage rule.
• It points to alternative routes such as RTI and defence witnesses.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Ask for inspection of voluminous unrelied material and then list specific documents.
• Use RTI or defence witnesses for documents the agency does not hold.

For Prosecuting Agencies

• Keep unrelied files organised and ready for production at trial.
• State clearly which documents are unavailable and why.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It left the Padhi–Sarla Gupta question open and gave case-specific directions.

Seek them under the RTI Act or through a defence witness, as the Court indicated.

No. They were set aside and replaced with the Supreme Court's directions.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →