CBI Supplied All Relied & Un-Relied Documents in Loan Fraud Case: Delhi HC Refuses to Summon DRT Records [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that when the CBI has already supplied all relied and un-relied documents to the accused in a loan fraud case, there is no need for the criminal court to summon original records from the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Shambhu Prasad Singh, the petitioner, approached the Delhi High Court by filing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging a common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. By that order, the trial court had dismissed two applications filed by the petitioner under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of documents.

The petitioner was a director of Dynamic Shells (India) Pvt. Ltd., which had availed credit facilities from Punjab National Bank. After the account was declared a non-performing asset, recovery proceedings were initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and later, a CBI FIR was registered based on a complaint by the bank.

During the trial, the petitioner sought summoning of original DRT records relating to the recovery applications, as well as the original complaint dated 7 March 2013 allegedly made to the CBI and the outcome of any preliminary enquiry on that complaint.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the DRT proceedings arose from the same transactions that formed the basis of the criminal case and were necessary for a fair defence, especially at the stage of cross-examination of the investigating officer.

They also argued that the earlier complaint of 2013 and its outcome were important to show whether the CBI had initially found no case and whether the later FIR was filed only after recovery proceedings and settlement talks failed.

The CBI opposed the petition and argued that all relied documents had been supplied along with copies of un-relied documents, in compliance with the law. It further argued that the recovery proceedings before the DRT were civil in nature and distinct from the criminal case. The applications were filed at a very late stage of the trial which had been pending for several years.

Read More: Perverse Finding by CIT(A) from Same Documents before AO: Chhattisgarh HC sustains Deletion of ₹4.89 Cr Income Tax Addition [Read Order]

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that Section 91 CrPC empowers the court to summon documents only if they are necessary or desirable for a just decision of the case. The court observed that the petitioner had admitted that copies of the DRT records and complaints were already supplied to him as un-relied documents. The court explained that if the petitioner required original documents for exhibition, he was free to approach the DRT directly, and there was no requirement for the trial court to summon those records.

The court held that there was no violation of the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and no infirmity in the trial court’s order dismissing the applications under Section 91 CrPC. The petition was dismissed.