The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking production of documents from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and consortium banks during the pendency of a criminal investigation, holding that an accused cannot compel supply of documents at the investigation stage merely to answer queries raised by the Investigating Officer.
The case arose from the FIR registered by the CBI dated June 29, 2021, alleging large-scale diversion of loan funds by EISML and its promoters, resulting in an alleged wrongful loss of about ₹806.07 crore to the consortium of banks. The petitioner contended that since EISML had entered CIRP on April 25, 2018, and its records were taken over by the Resolution Professional, he was no longer in possession of documents relating to transactions from 2007–2010, which the CBI was enquiring into. On this basis, he sought production of documents under Section 91 of the Code to enable “effective participation” in the investigation.
While considering the challenge, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the scope of Section 91 of the Code and observed that although the provision can be invoked even at the investigation stage, its use is discretionary and depends on whether production of documents is “necessary or desirable” for the investigation. The Court noted that the documents sought were already in the possession of the investigating agency and that the petitioner was being confronted with them during questioning. The Court held that an accused cannot demand copies of documents merely because he is unable to recall old transactions, and that the purpose of interrogation is to elicit answers based on personal knowledge.
The Court further held that permitting such requests would amount to a “mini-trial” at the investigation stage, which is impermissible. Relying on settled law, the High Court clarified that an accused’s right to seek documents for defence crystallises only after filing of the charge sheet, under Section 207 of the Code.
However, the Court directed that the investigating officer must give sufficient time to the petitioner to peruse documents shown to him during interrogation, if he is confronted with ‘voluminous or old documents’ to ensure fairness.
Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order dated December 20, 2023, the High Court upheld the rejection of the Section 91 application and dismissed the petition.
Appearance:
For Petitioner: Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Neena Nagpal, Malak Bhatt, Vishvendra Tomar, Tannavi Sharma, Rashvendra Tomar, and Nishtha Juneja.
For Respondents: Anupam S. Sharrma, Special Public Prosecutor, AOR Sanjay Kapur with Advocate Harpreet Kalsi, Vashisht Rao, Ripudaman Sharma, Vishesh Jain, Riya Sachdeva, Anant Mishra, Chatanya Sharma, Shitij Chakravarty, Udhav Hari Agarwal, O.P. Gaggar, Sachindra Karn, Surya Prakash, and Akanksha Bhatia.
