S SRINIVASAN Vs. DECCAN PETROLEUM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks to challenge the order passed by the Special Judge for trial of cases under Essential Commodities Act (sic)-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad under which the orders passed in Cri. M.P. No. 4378 of 1999 in C.C. No. 751 of 1996 dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the accused, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for summoning certain documents, has been affirmed.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused facing prosecution for offence under Sections 408, 420 and 418, I.P.C. The allegation appears to be that the petitioners-accused being the employees of the de facto complainant misappropriated certain amounts belonging to the company and that during the course of investigation certain amount said to be part of amount misappropriated has been recovered from their possession during the search made by the police on 14-11-1995. While the evidence was in progress, on behalf of the petitioner-accused, this application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed for calling three documents, the 1st document is a petition dated 11-11-1995 submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Marredpally against the Inspector of Police, Gopalapuram Police Station, 2nd document is a complaint made against the Inspector of Police dated 10-11-1995 submitted to the Director General of Police by R. Mathrubhutham about the wrongful confinement of the petitioners and the 3rd document is said to be a complaint given against the Postman dated 18-12-1995 to the Sub-Postmaster by the 2nd accused in respect of non-delivery of a registered notice said to have been issued by the advocate for the accused about the alleged wrongful confinement. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in two complaints a specific allegation was made by the father of accused No. 2 stating that the landlord of the accused was compelled to pay certain amount to the police which itself was shown as amount recovered from the accused. Further according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 3rd document in respect of the complaint made to the Sub-Postmaster is sought to be called to show that a complaint in respect of the arrest and detention of the accused was lodged at the earliest. The contention of the learned counsel is that these documents are relevant to show that the recoveries set up by the prosecution are fake and made up.

(3.) The order passed by the learned Magistrate would disclose that he was not adverted his attention to the nature of the documents and whether it has any relevancy to the accusation against the accused in the case. The learned Sessions Judge has made generalised observations that he did not find anything wrong with the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge also shows that he has not focused any attention as to whether the documents have any bearing on the question involved in this case. What is required to be seen under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code is whether a document or thing sought to be summoned is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings of the Court. The plea of the accused in their petition filed before the Magistrate was that these documents are necessary to support the defence set up by the accused namely that the recoveries relied on by the prosecution are not genuine. Considering the case against the accused and also considering the nature of documents sought to be summoned by the accused it cannot be said that the documents in question have no bearing on the facts required to be determined in the case. At any rate neither the learned Magistrate nor the learned Sessions Judge, have bestowed any pointed attention as to the nature of the documents called for and as to the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused to determine whether the documents have any bearing on the questions involved in this case. The impugned order will lead to prejudice to the accused and deserves to be quashed to secure ends of justice.