Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Other
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit
2026 INSC 1064
Criminal Appeal No. 4618 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 17158 of 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 25 September 2026
- Bench
- Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 91 and 227; Right to Information Act, 2005
Final Outcome
Appeal disposed of. The impugned orders were set aside to facilitate an expeditious trial, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with the Court's directions on inspection and production (paras 11-15).
Brief Facts
In a CBI case before the Special Judge No. 1, CBI, Ranchi, the accused applied under Section 91 CrPC for ten categories of documents, including seizure memos, CBI registers, the source information report, all seized but unrelied documents, minutes of building committee meetings, videography and the appointment files of two architects not charge-sheeted (paras 2, 8). The application was allowed on 21.09.2019 (para 2). The CBI produced some documents, calling others confidential or unavailable (paras 3, 9). A further order of 18.07.2022 was affirmed in the impugned order, which the CBI challenged (para 3). Before the Supreme Court, the accused filed an affidavit that he was not seeking source information or case diaries (para 5).
Court's Findings
The CBI relied on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, under which an accused's entitlement under Section 91 ordinarily arises only at the defence stage. The accused relied on Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, which read Padhi as confined to the 'record of the case' under Section 227, though it said copies of unrelied documents are ordinarily not available at the charge stage (paras 5-6). The Bench left this open. It proceeded on the premise that the accused is entitled to documents available with the prosecuting agency to shape the defence, holding that the stage depends on the specific documents sought (para 7). Seizure memos were produced; the request for CBI registers and source information was withdrawn (para 10). Voluminous unrelied documents may be inspected, and a specific document sought when the relevant witness is examined; alternatively, documents named at inspection in a writing signed by both sides must be produced before the Trial Court (para 11). Minutes of other meetings can be sought the same way; if the CBI lacks them, the accused may use the RTI Act or a defence witness (para 12). Documents the CBI does not have cannot be ordered produced (para 13).
Legal Principle
An accused may access documents in the prosecution's possession to prepare the defence, but when depends on the document. Voluminous unrelied material is met by inspection, with production of specific documents at trial when the relevant witness is examined; documents not in the agency's possession cannot be ordered produced.
Precedents Relied Upon
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568
Referred To · Discussed at ¶ 5, 6, 7
Relied on by the CBI: an accused's entitlement to seek an order under Section 91 CrPC would ordinarily not arise until the stage of defence. The Bench proceeded without deciding between this and Sarla Gupta.
Sarla Gupta and Another v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025) 7 SCC 626
Referred To · Discussed at ¶ 5, 6, 7
Relied on by the accused: read Debendra Nath Padhi as concerning the 'record of the case' under Section 227 CrPC, while holding (para 68.4) that an accused is entitled to a list of unrelied documents but ordinarily not to copies at the charge stage. The Bench did not decide the point.