Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) by Aravind Sankar Navalgund and Keshav Benakaji Kulkarni against the State represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioners were accused in Special CBI CC No. 10/2013 pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Dharwad. In the trial, the petitioners had filed applications under Section 91 of CrPC seeking production of certain documents. The first petitioner's application dated 09.08.2012 was dismissed on 05.02.2013, and the second petitioner's application dated 23.08.2013 under Section 91 read with Section 233(3) CrPC was dismissed on 26.10.2013. Instead of challenging these dismissal orders through appropriate remedies such as revision or appeal, the petitioners directly approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking directions to the trial court to produce the documents and also to call for the records from the trial court. The High Court heard arguments from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the CBI. The court observed that the petitions under Section 482 CrPC were not maintainable because the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under the CrPC to challenge the dismissal of their applications. The court noted that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked when a specific remedy is provided and not exhausted. The court found that the petitioners had not shown any exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed both petitions as not maintainable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applications for production of documents.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 CrPC - Maintainability - Inherent powers cannot be invoked when specific remedy under CrPC is available and not exhausted - Petitioners sought production of documents under Section 91 CrPC which was rejected by trial court; instead of challenging the order, they filed fresh petitions under Section 482 CrPC - Held that such petitions are not maintainable as they circumvent the statutory scheme (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 91 CrPC - Production of documents - Application for production of documents must be considered by trial court on merits - Petitioners' applications under Section 91 CrPC were dismissed by trial court; subsequent petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking same relief without challenging the dismissal order are not maintainable - Held that the proper remedy is to challenge the order of dismissal before appropriate forum (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking direction for production of documents when the trial court had already rejected similar applications under Section 91 CrPC and the petitioners had not availed alternative remedies.
Final Decision
Both criminal petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under the CrPC to challenge the dismissal of their applications under Section 91 CrPC, and the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory scheme.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to circumvent specific remedies under CrPC
- Section 91 CrPC application for production of documents must be considered by trial court
- Section 233(3) CrPC for examination of witnesses after charge
- maintainability of criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC when alternative remedy exists
