JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.07.2022, passed in R.C. 12(A)/2014-R by the learned AJC-XVIII- cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby the petition filed by the opposite party under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction for supply of documents have been allowed. 3. The FIR was registered on 31.10.2014 against the different accused persons alleging therein that during the period 2010 to 2014 the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other and awarded the consultancy work for preparation of master plan and comprehensive architectural building, designing and engineering design for the permanent campus of Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi on the basis of fake documents and making fraudulent payments to the said firms thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 1,92,08,774/-. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI submits that after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted under Sections 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He next submits that the petitioner herein has filed a petition for supply of certain documents, which was allowed by the learned court by order dated 21.09.2019. He then submits that thereafter the petitioner-CBI has filed the compliance affidavit of that order disclosing the reasons that how certain documents have not been supplied to the opposite party. He further submits that thereafter further petition was filed by the sole opposite party on 27.05.2022, whereby, the learned court by the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 has been pleased to pass the order to supply the documents, sought to be desired by the sole opposite party. He also submits that the learned court has erred in passing the said order, as the said documents are not available with the CBI or some of the documents are confidential in nature. He further submits that even the prosecution witnesses have not been started to be examined as yet and when the opposite party will reach the stage of his defence, he is having the right to invoke Section 91 read with Section 242 of the Cr.P.C., as the case is arising before the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 5. 5. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI relied in the case of Sarla Gupta & Anr. Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2025) 7 SCC 626 and by way of referring Paras-68.3 to 68.8, he submits that at the stage of defence of the opposite party only, the required documents can be procured. 6. He also submits that the second judgment in the case of Manoj & Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353 and in light of para-205 of the said judgment, the said stage has not come as yet. 7. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI on the above grounds submits that the impugned order of the learned court may kindly be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has not committed any error, as in spite of several orders, passed by the learned court, the CBI has not complied the said order and thereafter the said order has been passed, whereby the CBI was directed to supply the documents in question, which was not challenged by the CBI and subsequently, when the documents have not been supplied, further petition has been filed by the sole opposite party and the learned court has further directed the CBI to supply the desired documents. He next submits that in view of that the CBI is required to supply the said documents. 9. learned counsel has relied in the case of Sarla Gupta & Anr. Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2025) 7 SCC 626 and he refers to paras-68.3 and 68.8, which are as under:- “68.3. We hold that a copy of the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the accused. As held by this Court, the object is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of the documents, objects, etc. in the custody of the investigating officer which are not relied upon so that at the appropriate stage, the accused can apply by invoking the provisions of Section 91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies of the documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution. 68.8. in the custody of the investigating officer which are not relied upon so that at the appropriate stage, the accused can apply by invoking the provisions of Section 91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies of the documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution. 68.8. At the time of hearing of an application for bail governed by Section 45(1)(ii) in connection with the offences under Section 3 of the PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke Section 91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) seeking production of unrelied upon documents. If investigation or further investigation in progress, the ED is entitled to raise objection to production of documents sought by the accused on the ground that if the documents are disclosed at this stage to the accused, it may prejudice the investigation. Only if the court after perusing the documents is satisfied that the disclosure of the documents at that stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation, it can deny the prayer for the production of such documents.” 10. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the CBI is bound to supply the desired documents to the accused for the fair trial. 11. Learned counsel has further relied in the case of Manoj & Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353 and he refers to Paras-205 and 209 of the said judgment, which are as under:- “205. In the present case, the trial court ought to have inquired more deeply into the role of DW 1, given that by her own deposition she had admitted to analysing call detail records and involvement in Neha's arrest — all of which had been suppressed by the prosecution side, for reasons best known to them. In this context, a reading of Sections 91 and 243CrPC as done in Manu Sharma [Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , is important to refer to : (Manu Sharma case [Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , SCC p. 85, para 217) “217. … Section 91 empowers the court to summon production of any document or thing which the court considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or another proceeding under the provisions of the Code. … Section 91 empowers the court to summon production of any document or thing which the court considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or another proceeding under the provisions of the Code. Where Section 91 read with Section 243 says that if the accused is called upon to enter his defence and produce his evidence there he has also been given the right to apply to the court for issuance of process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination, cross-examination or the production of any document or other thing for which the court has to pass a reasoned order.” 209. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, comply with the above rule, and furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules.” 12. Relying on the above two judgments, he submits that the prosecution in the interests of fairness is required to supply the documents and as such, the learned court has rightly passed the said order. 13. In view of the above submissions of respective parties, it appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has filed a petition on 27.05.2019, which was allowed by the learned court on 21.09.2019 and the said order has not been challenged before any higher court, as such, the said order has attained the finality and after giving several opportunity to the CBI, the compliance report has been filed, saying that available documents has already been supplied and certain documents have not been supplied. The other petition has also been filed by the sole opposite party before the learned court and on that petition the impugned order has been passed on 18.07.2022. 14. The CBI has taken the following grounds of not supplying the documents and that has been stated in para-10 of the present petition, which is as under:- (a) Photocopies of all seizure memos, through which documents have been seized by the IO during investigation of from various departments/ authorities. Photocopies of all seizure memos this case through which documents have been seized by the 10 during investigation are supplied. Photocopies of all seizure memos this case through which documents have been seized by the 10 during investigation are supplied. (b) Photocopies for Daily Dairy Register and FIR Register maintained in the office of SP, ???/???, Ranchi, ACB, the for month October/ November 2014-Not supplied as are of these confidential documents and neither seized/collected/relied upon in the instant case. (c) Photocopies of letter Dispatch Register of the office of the SP CBI/HOB, ACB, Ranchi for the month of October/November 2014. Not supplied as these are confidential documents and neither seized /collected/relied upon in the instant case. (d) Photocopies of Source Information Report (SIR) of case No. RC No. 12A/2014-R and its SIR verification report both are public document and mandatory part of FIR Itself.- Not supplied as these are confidential documents and neither seized /collected/relied upon in the instant case. (e) Photocopies of all documents seized by the IO but not relied upon in the charge sheet.- The un- relied upon documents collected during the investigation are voluminous the petitioner is requested inspect these to documents seized in this case with the permission of this Hon'ble court. (f) Photocopies of minutes of 8 th , 9 th , 10 th , 12th, 13th, and 14th, Building Committee as frequent Reference appearing in Upon Documents of these meetings are the Charge Sheet and Relied at number of places. This established the pick and Choose theory of documents as blatantly followed prosecution documents, in supports of by the defense have been withheld by the prosecution with malafide intensions. Documents related to 11th meeting dated 27.01.12 are cited in the charge- sheet which has already been supplied to the accused Apart of any petitioner as relied upon document. from this, no other reference Building Committee meetings are concerned with this case. Since the un-relied documents voluminous are documents which can and un-relied be perused by the petitioner by the permission of this Hon'ble Court. (g) Videography/Photography of evaluation committee meeting for finalization of Master Plan dated 16 and 17/12/2011 and another meeting held on dated 21.01.2012 for finalization designs for Individual Buildings. The videography / photography of evaluation committee meetings for Finalization of Master Plan, was not collected during the investigation in this case and, hence, the same could not be supplied. As such no recording is available with CBI in this case. The videography / photography of evaluation committee meetings for Finalization of Master Plan, was not collected during the investigation in this case and, hence, the same could not be supplied. As such no recording is available with CBI in this case. (h) Photocopies of minutes of the meeting held on 21.01.2012 for Finalization of Individual Buildings attendance designs, with sheet.- the signed This document is not available with ???. (i) Photocopies of expression of Interest and the Technical bid as submitted by the applicant, while applying for the process of selection in response of Expression of interest.- Relied upon document was marked D-2 which contains EOI, has already been supplied to the petitioner. Technical bid as submitted by the applicant, while applying for the process of selection in response to Expression of Interest, is not available in the file collected from CUJ by CBI. (j) Appointment files of M/s Grey Parikh Architects Pvt. Ltd. and MS Sandeep Shirke Architects & Associates Pvt. Ltd. the two accused with were named in FIR but dropped in Chargsheet.- Part of the unrelied upon and requested the petitioner for examination/ perusal with the approval of the court. 15. The nature of the documents, which are said to be sought by the sole opposite party appears to be the public documents and the CBI has taken the ground of not supplying the documents, which prima facie appears that the CBI unnecessarily taken that ground. 16. In the case of Manoj & Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-209 of the said judgment has categorically held that the prosecution in the interests of fairness, should be as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, comply with the above rule and that has been discussed from paras-205 onwards. 17. In the case of Sarla Gupta’s Case (Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-68.3 of the said judgment that the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the Investigating officer must be supplied to the accused. 18. 17. In the case of Sarla Gupta’s Case (Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-68.3 of the said judgment that the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the Investigating officer must be supplied to the accused. 18. In light of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., the summons to produce, a document or other thing can be issued where the court finds that the production of the document or thing "is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, trial or other proceeding" under the Cr.P.C and in the case in hand, the court has rightly exercised that aspect of the matter. 19. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order, as there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed.