Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Sets Aside Orders for Production of Unrelied Documents at Charge Stage, Permits Inspection and Targeted Production During Trial

Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit

Date of Judgment: 25 September 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1064.

Bench: Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.

Held: The Supreme Court set aside orders directing the CBI to produce documents not relied upon in its chargesheet at the stage of framing charges, while preserving the accused’s access through inspection and production of specifically identified documents at the appropriate stage of trial. Where the records are voluminous, the accused may inspect them and seek production when the relevant prosecution or defence witness is examined. Alternatively, documents identified during inspection may be recorded in a written list signed by both parties and placed before the Trial Court without delay, with those documents kept available during trial. The Court also held that the CBI cannot be required to produce material not in its possession.

Summary: The appeal arose from an application filed by accused Anil Dixit under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking various documents from the CBI at the charge-framing stage. The Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi allowed the application on 21 September 2019. The CBI subsequently produced some records, resisted disclosure of others and stated that certain requested materials were not available with it. A further order dated 18 July 2022, affirmed by the impugned order, led to the CBI’s appeal.

The requests covered seizure memoranda, internal registers, source information, documents seized but not relied upon, building committee minutes, recordings of evaluation meetings, tender-related material and appointment files concerning two architectural firms that were not chargesheeted.

The accused relied on Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, while the CBI invoked State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi. The Supreme Court noted that Sarla Gupta recognised entitlement to a list of unrelied documents at the charge-framing stage, while stating that copies are ordinarily not available at that stage. However, the Court expressly declined to resolve the matter through a broader examination of those decisions. It instead considered the particular documents sought and the stage at which their production would be appropriate.

The seizure memoranda had already been supplied. As regards the CBI’s internal registers and source information, the Court recorded that these could not be divulged and that the accused had withdrawn his request.

For the voluminous unrelied documents, the Court adopted an inspection-based procedure. The accused could examine the records and seek production of a particular document when the appropriate witness was examined during trial. The CBI was directed to keep the files ready for that purpose. As an alternative, the accused or his authorised representative could identify the required documents during inspection through a written record signed by both sides and submitted promptly to the Trial Court.

The accused also sought minutes of building committee meetings which, according to him, could absolve him of criminal liability. The CBI maintained that it relied only on the minutes of the eleventh meeting, already supplied. The Court held that other requested minutes, if present in the inspectable records, could be sought through the procedure it prescribed.

If those minutes were not with the CBI, the accused could obtain and prove them in defence, including through the Right to Information Act, 2005 or a suitable witness. Their evidentiary value would remain for the Trial Court to determine.

The Court further recorded the CBI’s position that certain recordings, meeting records and technical-bid material were unavailable. It reiterated that documents outside the agency’s possession could not be compelled from it. The resulting directions preserved access to potentially relevant defence material while removing the production orders that impeded progress of the trial.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with the inspection and document-production procedure prescribed in its order.