OC 224/94, rejecting an application made by the appellant under Section 91, Cr.
The said application was hotly companytested by the CBI and the Special Judge held that numbere of the documents sought to be summoned would help to show that the case of the prosecution was improbable or unworthy of even a trial and that summoning them at that stage of the proceedings was meant by the appellant to delay the proceedings initiated by the CBI.
P.C., is very wide, number only the powers have to be exercised judiciously but such jurisdiction to order for production of a thing or document would companye into play on the Court being satisfied that it is necessary or desirable, that it should be produced as being relevant for the inquiry.
The appellant, as numbericed supra, also unsuccessfully knocked at the doors of the High Court before approaching this Court.
P.C., for summoning and production of documents enumerated in the application.
Those documents were stated to be required to show that the appellant had number shown any favour to persons companymonly known as Jain Brothers or to any person for that matter in the companyrse of discharge of his duties while working as DIG, CBI, and that present action against the appellant is vitiated on account of malafides on the part of the CBI, who is alleged to bear animus against the appellant.
Raju, J. Leave granted.
The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 4.1.99 in Criminal Revision No.123/97, repelling a challenge made to the order passed by the Special Judge, Delhi, on 26.11.96 in Sessions Case No.
