Date of Judgment:
12 July 2021
Judge:
Justice Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna
Parties:
MD. GHOUSEUDDIN (Petitioner)
SYED RIAZUL HUSSAIN & ANR. (Respondent)
Subject
In the case, two questions were raised before the Court.
i) Whether summoning of the documents can be done after the trial gets completed?
ii) Whether the High Court has exceeded in its revisional jurisdiction as the Trial Court passed an interlocutory order ?
Overview
- The High Court of Telangana, on 5th February, 2019 allowed the revisional application and reversed the decision of the Trial Court.
- It rejected the application for summoning of the document(s) which was moved by the private respondent.
- The trial got completed and the accused was thoroughly examined under Section 313 of CrPC.
- After that, the application for summoning the document(s) was moved only without laying any proper foundation for grant of such relief, as claimed by the private respondent.
- Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 14 SCC 809, and contended that the Trial Court order was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. On the basis of this, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that the High Court justly interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court, with valid reasons.
Legal Provision
- Section 91 of CrPC (Summons to produce document or other thing): The Court holds the authority to issue summons to any person, who the Court believes has any document which can be used in the case proceeding.
- Section 313 of CrPC (Power to examine the accused): The Trial Court has the power to examine the accused during inquiry or trial, so that the accused can explain the evidences produced against him.
Judgment Analysis
- After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the Court came to an opinion that the High Court should not be overstep its jurisdiction. The Trial Court had passed a sound and tangible judgment with reasons for rejecting the application for summoning of the documents moved at such a belated stage and without any justification for such relief.
- The High Court completely glossed over this aspect in the impugned judgment. It should have taken into account all relevant aspects, including the fact that the trial was already completed long back.
- Although the right to summon document(s) is indeed available but that has to be exercised while the trial is in progress and not when the trial gets completed. This includes recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code had been recorded.
- Such belated application must not whittle down the efficacy of the trial.
- The Supreme Court resorted to the Trial Court order, rejecting the application for summoning the documents and reversed the order passed by the High Court.
- It ordered the trial to proceed expeditiously and conclude it preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- Further it ordered that any pending applications related to this must be disposed off.
Conclusion
This judgement discussed about the implication and scope of Section 91 and Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. While reversing the High Court order, the Apex Court said that the Trial Court had justified its reason for the order they pronounced while rejecting the document summoning application. It laid down the fact that, any belated applications must not disturb the effectiveness of the Trial Court. Furthermore, it set the guideline for the document summons, which was only to be made while the trial is being conducted and not after the trial is completed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
