APHC010019262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 59 OF 2024 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1273 of 2023 in C.C.No. 06 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases, in Rayalaseema Region, At Kurnool. Between: Sreepathi Devadanam, S/o U.S.Jacob (late). Aged 55 years, Occ: Head Constable, R/o. 27/253-1, Ranneshwaram, Proddatur, Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Spl.PP/SC ACB, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 7/ Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRIMAN, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S.SYAMSUNDER RAO, ADVOCATE, SPL. PP/SC, ACB, HIGH COURT OF A.P. The Court made the following ORDER ; APHC010019262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 59/2024 Between: SREEPATHI DEVADANAM, S/0 U.S.JACOB (LATE), AGED 55 YEARS, OCC HEAD CONSTABLE, PRODDATUR KADAPA DISTRICT. R/0 27/253-L,RANNESHWARAM ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Spl.PP/SC ACB. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondent: S SYAMSUNDER RAO 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2024 m Dated 17.07.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 02.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1273 of 2023 in C.C.No.06 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Kurnool, filed under Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C. for production of certain documents from the Superintendent of Police Kadapa, Office of Yerraguntia Railway Police Station, (GRP), Office of Kondapuramu RS and Zuari Cement Plant, Yerraguntia. According to the petitioner/Accused Officer those documents are necessary to prove that the case of the prosecution was false and fabricated. 2. Sri Sriman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, argued that calling of certain documents is essential to prove his innocence. The learned Trial Court erroneously dismissed his application. Unless those documents are secured and filed into the Court to prove his innocence, the petitioner could not get any kind of justice, and it is urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2024 Dated 17.07.2025 3. Per contra, Sri S. Syam Suder Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, argued that the learned Trial Court had rightly considered all the relevant aspects and dismissed the petition. It is further argued that the petition was filed only to delay in the cross-examination of P.W. 1. He relied on the judgment in Vinod Kumar v. State of Panjab in Crl.A.No.554 of 2012 dated 21.01.2015 wherein it is held that Chief examination and examination of complainant and other witnesses should be done on the same day, if not possible, on the immediate next day. cause a cross 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. I have perused the record. 5. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.M.P.No.1273 of 2023 in C.C.No.06 of 2022, dated 02.11.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases, in Rayalaseema Region, at Kurnool, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 6. The learned Trial Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, and the petition was filed without making any efforts to obtain the documents 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2024 Dated 17.07.2025 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the RTI Act’). The Accused Officer was examined during the Court trap proceedings, but he did not put forth the said plea of his non-availability at the time of demand or acceptance. He did not state the said fact even during his first remand. Hence, the plea of the petitioner shall not be considered. Regarding item Nos.2 to 4, the learned Trial Court observed that there were no efforts made by the petitioner under the provisions of ‘the RTI Act’ to secure them. The learned Trial Court also observed that, at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner cannot use his defence, and that the petitioner will get his chance to adduce evidence during the defence stage, at which time he can secure those documents and mark them on his behalf by summoning the relevant witnesses. Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ enables the Courts to summon the 7. production of documents or other things. For better appreciation and understanding of the case, it is apposite to extract Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as under: 1) Whenever any Court or any officer-in-charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2024 Dated 17.07.2025 power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated In the summons or order. 2) Any person required under this Section merely to produce a document or other thin shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. 3) Noting in this Section shall be deed: a) to affect. Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority. A fair reading of Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ it is clear that the 8. Court has got the ample power to order for production of any document or thing if it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of the trial, and in that regard, the Court may issue summons or require such officer by way of written order, in whose possession or power the document or thing is there, requiring him to attend, produce it, or to cause produce it. Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ does not prescribe any time limit. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he tried his level best to produce the documents under the provisions of ‘the RTI Act’. Even as seen from the impugned order, the petitioner filed a reply received by him, which showed that the petitioner sought 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.59 of2024 Dated 17.07.2025 information in respect of the documents mentioned in item No.1 of the petition, but it was rejected on the ground that it involves personal data and it cannot be permitted under Section 8(1) (g) of ‘the RTI Act’. Even otherwise, Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ does not lay down any condition that before filing an application under Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the petitioner must exhaust the remedy contemplated under ‘the RTI Act’ for procuring any documents. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner has not availed the remedy under ‘the RTI Act’ for getting the documents and filing them into the Court is, unsustainable, as it is beyond the scope of Section 91 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. What the Court is required to do is to consider whether the document is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial for the ends of justice, conclusion that the document is desirable or necessary for the purpose of the trial, it has to be in all probability summoned. The petitioner’s contention is that the document sought to be procured by him from the possession of the above-mentioned officers is very nnuch essential for him to prove his innocence in this case. It is the .,-.1 specific contention of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in this case. If such contention is raised by the petitioner, the learned Trial 10. If the Court comes to the 11. 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2024 Dated 17.07.2025 Court ought to have considered the petition and ordered for securing the documents from the concerned authorities. Be that as it may, if such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, ends justice would have been secured. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are unsustainable, and the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1273 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Kurnool, is set aside. The learned Special Judge is directed to secure those documents from the custody of the authorities as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner shall cooperate with the learned Trial Court for the completion of the trial. The learned Trial Court shall complete the trial within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. 13. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR il closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases, in Rayalaseema Region, At Kurnool, Kurnool District. (By Rpad) 2. One CC to Sri Sriman, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to Sri S.Syamsunder Rao, Advocate, Spl. PP/SC, ACB, High Courtof A.P [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies GPC TAG HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 59 OF 2024 ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE