DIWAKAR GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is made to an order-dated 16.8.2013 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Morena in Special Case No. 11/2012, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of certain documents before framing of charge, has been rejected. Petitioner herein was President of a Cooperative Society and in the matter of distribution of benefits in accordance to various government schemes in the year 1990-91 upto 1995-96 as various irregularities have been committed and defalcation to the tune of more than Rs. 3,10,409/- was detected, he is being prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is at the stage of framing of charges. Petitioner filed an application under section 91 Cr.P.C., for summoning of certain documents which is said to be in the possession of the prosecution. The documents pertain to disbursement of the benefits under the government scheme, resolutions, notifications of the Cooperative Society, and records with regard to the functioning of the society, for the relevant period i.e. from 1990-91 to 1995-96. The application has been rejected by the trial court mainly on the ground that the charge-sheet has been filed, the charges are to be framed based on the documents filed by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet and at the time of framing of charge, summoning of documents is not necessary. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the trial court on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 AIR(SC) 359 and, two other judgments in the case of State Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and another Vs. P. Suryaprakasam, 2008 14 SCC 13: Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others, 2008 14 SCC 1, to say that at this stage the documents cannot be summoned.

(3.) That apart, learned trial court has found that from the assertion made by the prosecution it is seen that these documents were never seized by the prosecution, they are not available with the prosecution and, therefore, they cannot be produced.