The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that an accused cannot compel production of a status report submitted to the Supreme Court in another proceeding when it is not part of the case record, emphasizing that the right to seek documents arises at the stage of entering upon defence, not during prosecution evidence, and upholding the trial court’s discretion under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Amarjit Singh, an accused in the CBI case titled “CBI versus Baldev Singh and others”, sought production of a status report dated 11.12.1995 submitted by the CBI before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in compliance with its order dated 30.08.1994. The report was said to have been referred to by PW-34, the Investigating Officer, during his deposition and was required for effective cross-examination. The trial court had twice declined the request, first on 04.12.2024 and again on 28.05.2025 (the impugned order). The petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the impugned order and a direction to produce the status report, besides a stay of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. RC-6(S)/94 dated 12.09.1994.
Key Facts
- The underlying case arises from FIR No. RC-6(S)/94 dated 12.09.1994, registered at Police Station SPE/CBI/SIU-V/SIC-II, New Delhi, under Sections 302, 364, 218, 120-B and 34 IPC.
- The FIR relates to the alleged detention and killing of four persons (Balwinder Singh alias Baju, Balwinder Singh alias Kala, Harjinder Singh alias Rana, Saroop Singh alias Suba) by Punjab Police on 25.01.1994.
- On 30.08.1994, the Supreme Court entrusted the CBI with investigation of the matter.
- The CBI filed a charge-sheet on 31.05.1996 against 28 accused; the case was committed to the Sessions Court on 19.11.1996 and charges were framed on 20.09.1997.
- Proceedings were stayed by this Court from 06.04.2000.
- On 06.06.2012, the Court directed day-to-day trial with conclusion within six months.
- The stay was imposed by the Supreme Court on 13.07.2012 and vacated on 21.09.2016.
- Statement of PW-1 Puran Singh was recorded on 14.10.2016.
- On 24.11.2022, the Court directed the CBI Court to dispose of cases over 20 years old before 31.03.2023.
- On 10.04.2023, the Court directed conclusion of the present trial by 31.08.2023, subsequently extended by four months on 20.09.2023.
- The case is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence; PW-34, Shri Surinder Paul, the Investigating Officer, has been under cross-examination since July 2024.
- The petitioner filed an application on 09.10.2024 seeking the status report dated 11.12.1995, copies of four CFSL reports and a draft note dated 26.03.1996 for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
- The trial court declined the request vide order dated 04.12.2024.
- Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court via CRM-M-7310-2025; the Court remanded the matter on 07.02.2025 for fresh consideration.
- Pursuant to the remand, the petitioner filed a fresh application on 19.02.2025; the CBI replied on 21.05.2025.
- The trial court again declined the request vide order dated 28.05.2025 (the impugned order), observing that the status report was not part of the charge-sheet nor a relied-upon or un-relied document of the present case.
- The present petition was filed thereafter challenging the impugned order.
Procedural History
- 25.01.1994: Alleged detention and killing of four persons by Punjab Police.
- 25.01.1994: FIR No. 19 registered at Dhariwal under Sections 307, 34 IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Act, TADA Act.
- 30.08.1994: Supreme Court order entrusting CBI with investigation.
- 12.09.1994: FIR No. RC-6(S)/94 registered at SPE/CBI/SIU-V/SIC-II, New Delhi under Sections 302, 364, 218, 120-B, 34 IPC.
- 31.05.1996: CBI charge-sheet filed against 28 accused.
- 19.11.1996: Case committed to Sessions Court.
- 20.09.1997: Charges framed.
- 06.04.2000: Proceedings stayed by this Court.
- 06.06.2012: Court directed day-to-day trial, conclusion within six months.
- 13.07.2012: Supreme Court stayed proceedings.
- 21.09.2016: Supreme Court vacated stay.
- 14.10.2016: Statement of PW-1 Puran Singh recorded.
- 24.11.2022: Court directed disposal of cases >20 years old before 31.03.2023.
- 10.04.2023: Court directed conclusion of trial by 31.08.2023.
- 20.09.2023: Period extended by four months (new deadline 31.12.2023).
- 09.10.2024: Petitioner’s application for status report and related documents.
- 04.12.2024: Trial court order declining prayer for status report.
- 07.02.2025: High Court (CRM-M-7310-2025) remanded matter for fresh consideration.
- 19.02.2025: Petitioner’s fresh application.
- 21.05.2025: CBI’s reply.
- 28.05.2025: Impugned order of trial court again declining prayer for status report.
- 10.09.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 15.09.2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2025, direction to produce the status report dated 11.12.1995, a stay of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. RC-6(S)/94 during the pendency of the petition, and any other appropriate order.
The Legal Issue
The narrow question for consideration was whether, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner had made out a case for directing production of the status report dated 11.12.1995 at a stage when prosecution evidence was still being recorded, particularly when the said document was not forwarded with the charge-sheet and was stated to be a report submitted by the CBI before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in separate proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned senior counsel relied on the disclosure obligations recognised in In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2021) 10 SCC 598, Manoj Kumar and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 447, Nithya Bhaktananda and another v. State, 2018(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 774 and P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 307 to argue that the accused has a right to seek production of material which may be necessary for a fair trial. It was contended that the status report, having been referred to by PW-34 during deposition, is directly connected with the present case and is required for effective cross-examination. Denial of the report was said to affect the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further argued that the CBI’s shifting stance - calling the report an internal document while also offering a certified copy from the Supreme Court - cannot defeat the accused’s right to access relevant material.
For the Respondent
The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the status report dated 11.12.1995 is an internal document of the CBI, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court pursuant to its order dated 30.08.1994, and was neither attached to the original charge-sheet nor a part of the relied-upon or un-relied documents of the present case. The four remaining CFSL reports had already been supplied to the defence, and the draft note dated 26.03.1996 was irrelevant as sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. had already been provided. It was submitted that the petition was merely a tactic to delay a trial pending for more than thirty years, that all relevant material had already been made available to the accused, and that the cross-examination of PW-34 by one counsel had been completed while other counsel’s cross-examination was still pending. Reliance was placed on Sarla Gupta and another v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC Online 1063 to support the contention that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the law governing supply and production of documents at different stages of a criminal trial. It noted that under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the power to summon a document is discretionary and the trial court must consider whether production is necessary or desirable for the proceedings, with the stage of proceedings being relevant (State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568; Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay v. L.R. Melwani, (1969) 2 SCR 438). The judgment in Sarla Gupta’s case (supra) clarified that a stronger statutory right under Sections 233(3) and 243(2) Cr.P.C. operates at the stage of entering upon defence, whereas at the stage of framing of charge the accused is ordinarily not entitled to invoke Section 91 for documents not relied upon by the prosecution. The Court further observed that the right to seek production of documents is not an unqualified right to call for every document considered useful; the document must fall within the scheme of the Code and its production must be judged having regard to the stage of proceedings and the requirement of a fair trial (V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771; Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI, Delhi, (2000) 5 SCC 679).
Applying these principles, the Court found that the status report dated 11.12.1995 was never made part of the charge-sheet nor a relied-upon or un-relied document of the present case. It was prepared by the CBI and submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in separate proceedings pursuant to the order dated 30.08.1994. The mere fact that PW-34 referred to the report during deposition does not render it a part of the case record or demonstrate its necessity for cross-examination at the stage of prosecution evidence. The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial does not entitle the accused to insist upon production of every document merely because it may assist in cross-examination; the trial court must be satisfied about the necessity and relevance of the document in the context of the proceedings. The learned trial court had considered these aspects afresh after the remand and correctly concluded that the status report was not necessary for the cross-examination of PW-34. This Court found no reason to take a different view and held that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 528 of BNSS.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed, upholding the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, SAS Nagar, Mohali. No relief was granted, including no direction for production of the status report dated 11.12.1995 or a stay of the proceedings. The parties are to bear their own costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Discretion Under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
The trial court’s discretion to refuse production of a document under Section 91 Cr.P.C. will not be interfered with unless the order is illegal, perverse or jurisdictionally erroneous. Practitioners must show that the document is necessary or desirable in the context of the proceedings and that the trial court’s assessment of necessity is flawed.
Right to Documents Arises at Defence Stage
The right to seek production of documents not relied upon by the prosecution crystallises at the stage of entering upon defence (Sections 233(3) and 243(2) Cr.P.C.). During prosecution evidence, the accused cannot rely on Section 91 to compel production of such documents unless they are shown to be essential for a just decision of the case.
Documents Outside Case Record Not Compellable
A document that was never part of the charge-sheet, nor a relied-upon or un-relied document of the case, and was merely submitted to a higher court in separate proceedings, cannot be compelled for production merely because a witness referred to it during deposition. The connection to the case must be demonstrated beyond a mere reference.
Balancing Fair Trial with Trial Conclusion
In long-pending trials, courts must balance the accused’s right to a fair trial with the equally important requirement that the trial reach its conclusion without avoidable interruptions. Petitions seeking production of collateral documents at late stages may be dismissed if they appear designed to delay proceedings rather than to secure a fair trial.
