KASHYAP KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners herein challenge the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 06/01/2020 by which learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act) has rejected petitioners' application for summoning to produce the preliminary report dated 26/05/2017 prepared by the Border Security Force (BSF).

(2.) Mr. Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the document claimed by the petitioners i.e. preliminary report submitted by the Border Security Force on 26/05/2017 is extremely necessary for the just and proper disposal of the criminal case filed against the petitioners as they have already been charge­sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 17 , 20 , 40 and 40(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with Sections 21(12) / 177 , 105 / 177 , 191 / 177 , 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and they are being tried for the aforesaid offences by the special Court. The said document is of sterling quality which can prove that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question, therefore, it needs to be produced before the Court before framing of charge against the present petitioners in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi,(2005) 1 SCC 568 . He further relies upon Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and submits that the document so claimed by the petitioners is absolutely necessary to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and accordingly, it may be directed to summon the respondent in order to produce the said document.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record carefully.