Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Summon Additional Documents at Charge Framing Stage: Nitya Dharmananda vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2017)

Introduction

Can a trial court summon additional documents not included in the charge sheet, during the stage of framing charges in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, clarifies the extent of the court’s power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This case involves a criminal appeal against a High Court order that allowed the summoning of additional documents. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The respondent, Gopal Sheelum Reddy, also known as Nithya Bhaktananda, faced charges, including those under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the trial, the respondent requested the High Court to summon all the materials available with the investigator. This material had not been included in the charge sheet. The High Court allowed the application, reversing the trial court’s decision. The appellants challenged this order, arguing that the High Court’s decision was against established legal principles.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially rejected the respondent’s application to summon additional documents. However, the High Court reversed this decision, allowing the application. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s decision was contrary to established law. The Supreme Court considered the arguments of all parties, including the amicus curiae, before delivering its judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section allows a court to summon any document or thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Code. The Supreme Court also considered the interpretation of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which deals with the framing of charges based on the material produced under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. states:
“Summons to produce document or other thing. – (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court’s decision was against the law established in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568. They contended that the defense cannot be considered at the stage of framing charges to avoid a mini-trial.

The respondent argued that if the investigator is unfair and withholds crucial material, the court has the power to summon it. They submitted that this is necessary to ensure justice.

The Court also considered the arguments of the learned amicus, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate, who assisted the Court in understanding the legal nuances of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was right in allowing the application to summon documents not included in the charge sheet at the stage of framing of charges under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered Section 91 and Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that while the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charges, the court is not powerless to summon documents if the interest of justice so requires. The court must be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, but not made part of the charge sheet, has a crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge.

The Court observed that:

• “it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91.”
• “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 if the accused may have no right to invoke Section 91.”
• “To exercise this power, the court is to be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, not made part of the chargesheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the trial court to proceed with the issue of framing of charge in light of the observations made in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by the need to balance the rights of the accused with the court’s duty to ensure justice. The court emphasized that while the accused cannot demand the summoning of documents as a matter of right at the stage of framing charges, the court is not powerless to act if it believes that crucial evidence has been withheld. The Court’s reasoning is based on the principle that the court must have the necessary powers to prevent injustice and uphold the rule of law.

Key Takeaways

• The accused cannot routinely use Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to summon documents at the stage of framing charges.
• The court has the power to summon documents not included in the charge sheet if it is satisfied that such documents are crucial for framing charges and in the interest of justice.
• This judgment balances the rights of the accused with the court’s duty to ensure a fair trial.
• The court’s power to summon documents is an exception to the general rule and should be exercised cautiously.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the issue of framing of charge in light of the observations made in the judgment. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on February 12, 2018, for further proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the accused cannot routinely invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges, the court has the power to summon documents not included in the charge sheet if the interest of justice so requires and if the material has a crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge. This judgment clarifies the existing legal position by emphasizing the court’s power to ensure justice, even while upholding the principle that the defense cannot be considered at the stage of framing charges.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court clarified that while the accused cannot routinely use Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to summon documents at the stage of framing charges, the court is not powerless. If the court believes that crucial evidence has been withheld and is necessary for the issue of framing of charge, it can summon such documents. This judgment balances the rights of the accused with the court’s duty to ensure a fair trial.