State of Rajasthan Vs Swarn Singh at Baba

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.856 OF 2024


(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3146 of 2021)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SWARN SINGH @ BABA …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated

18.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.273

of 2020, whereby the High Court while allowing the said

petition has directed all Courts in the State of

Rajasthan that whenever an application is moved to summon

the Call-details by the accused during the criminal

proceedings, the same shall not be deferred and will be

decided forthwith.

4. In the instant case, the respondent-accused is facing the

trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur

District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.18/2019 for


Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
the offences under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the NDPS
Date: 2024.02.14
18:00:01 IST
Reason:

Act. The respondent-accused had filed an application

before the Trial Court for summoning of the call details

1
of the Seizure Officer and some other police officials

for the date of seizure, i.e., 15.02.2019.

5. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide

the order dated 03.01.2020, against which the respondent

had filed the Miscellaneous Petition, which has been

allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant- State has rightly

drawn the attention of this Court to the legal position

settled by this Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs.

Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which a Three

Judge Bench of this Court has held as under: -

“25. Any document or other thing envisaged


under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to
be produced on finding that the same is
“necessary or desirable for the purpose of
investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceedings under the Code”. The first and
foremost requirement of the section is about
the document being necessary or desirable. The
necessity or desirability would have to be seen
with reference to the stage when a prayer is
made for the production. If any document is
necessary or desirable for the defence of the
accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at
the initial stage of framing of a charge would
not arise since defence of the accused is not
relevant at that stage. When the section refers
to investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that
under the section a police officer may move the
court for summoning and production of a
document as may be necessary at any of the
stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the
accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek
order under Section 91 would ordinarily not
come till the stage of defence. When the
section talks of the document being necessary
and desirable, it is implicit that necessity
and desirability is to be examined considering
the stage when such a prayer for summoning and

2
production is made and the party who makes it,
whether police or accused. If under Section
227, what is necessary and relevant is only the
record produced in terms of Section 173 of the
Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke
Section 91 to seek production of any document
to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons
for production of document can be issued by
court and under a written order an officer in
charge of a police station can also direct
production thereof. Section 91 does not confer
any right on the accused to produce document in
his possession to prove his defence. Section 91
presupposes that when the document is not
produced process may be initiated to compel
production thereof.”

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon

the decision in the case of Nitya Dharmananda Vs. Gopal

Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93, to submit that the court

being under the obligation to impart justice, is not

debarred from exercising its power under Section 91

Cr.P.C., if the interest of justice in a given case so

requires. However the said decision is not helpful to the

respondent. In the said decision also, it has been

observed that the accused cannot invoke and would not

have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of

framing of charge. In view of the law laid down by the

Three Judge Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath

Padhi, (supra), we are inclined to accept the present

appeal.

8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set

aside. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed accordingly.

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

3
10. It is needless to say that the respondent-accused shall

be at liberty to file the application at the appropriate

stage. It is further clarified that we have not expressed

any opinion on the merits of the case.

......................J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)

......................J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)

NEW DELHI;
12TH FEBRUARY, 2024.

4
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.15 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3146/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-02-2020


in SBCRMP No.273/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SWARN SINGH @ BABA Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.52743/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING


O.T.)

Date : 12-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv.


Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Mrs. Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Adv.
Ms. Yashika Bum, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR


Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sudhakar Kulwant, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. In terms of the signed order, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RAVI ARORA) (MAMTA RAWAT)


COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)

You might also like