Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)
R.Subramanian vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 June, 2021 cites

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

12.Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases) appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the petition has been filed with an intention to delay the progress of the trial and the trial Court had rightly finding the intention of petitioner in delaying the trial and finding that the production of the documents sought for were not necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial, had rightly dismissed the petition. The 1st respondent based on certain information had conducted preliminary enquiry as permitted and contemplated under law based on information. In appropriate cases, the police officers have a duty to make a preliminary enquiry so as to find out as to whether allegations made had any substance or not. Thereafter, after completion of preliminary enquiry finding out the veracity and the truthfulness of the allegations, based on the complaint dated 18.06.2013, had registered a regular case and continued with the investigation. The respondent has followed the 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.231 of 2021 procedure under the CBI manual and also followed the mandate of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner has been given all the relevant documents relied on by the prosecution in the case in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. P.W.1 had let in evidence in chief in adherence to his statement recorded during investigation after registration of the regular case and there is no suppression of facts and the petitioner even without cross examining P.W.1 had filed the petition u/s.91 Cr.P.C. to delay the trial.The trial Court after hearing the petitioner and observing that Order u/s.91 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature and also finding that the production of the documents was neither necessary nor desirable, had dismissed the petition. Further, the trial Court had taken into consideration that the petitioner had filed similar petitions earlier and that there were dismissed and that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier orders of dismissals. In respect of the 2nd prayer, the petitioner was not clear and had not disclosed any relevance for production of the documents. The petitioner is bound to show the relevancy, necessity and desirability for production of documents and no where in the petition, the petitioner has pleaded about the necessity or desirability. Section 91 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.231 of 2021 Cr.P.C. does not give an absolute right for the accused to ask for summoning of any documents and the discretion lies with the trial Court on consideration of facts. He would further submit that Order u/s.91 Cr.P.C. being discretionary in nature this Court has to see whether the trial Court had judicially exercised its discretion while disposing the petition filed u/s.91 Cr.P.C. When the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion, the superior Court cannot lightly or in a routine fashion intervene in such decision arrived by the trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next