An accused is entitled to the material in the prosecution’s hands to prepare a defence, but the stage at which he can demand it depends on what he is asking for, the Supreme Court has said, setting aside orders that required the CBI to produce unrelied-upon documents before charges were framed and laying down a mechanism for inspection and production at trial.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation to keep voluminous unrelied-upon documents available for inspection rather than produce them at the stage of framing of charges, directing that the accused may examine the seized records and seek specific documents when the relevant witness is being examined at trial [Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the impugned orders “to facilitate an expeditious trial” and directed the trial court to proceed in line with the directions issued.
Background of the case
The accused, prosecuted by the CBI in Case No. RC 12A/2014-R, moved an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking a range of documents. The Special Judge No. 1, CBI, Ranchi allowed it by an order dated September 21, 2019. The documents sought, listed as items (a) to (j), included seizure memos, the CBI’s daily diary, FIR and dispatch registers for October and November 2014, the Source Information Report and its verification report, all documents seized but not relied upon in the charge sheet, minutes of several Building Committee meetings, video recordings of evaluation committee meetings on a master plan, minutes of a January 2012 meeting on building designs, the accused’s own expression of interest and technical bid, and the appointment files of two architectural firms that were named in the FIR but dropped from the charge sheet.
In its compliance report, the CBI produced the seizure memos, declined to share the registers and the source information as unrelated or confidential, offered inspection of the unrelied-upon documents because of their volume, stated that only the minutes of the 11th Building Committee meeting were relevant and already supplied, and said the recordings, the January 2012 minutes and the technical bid were not in its possession. A further application by the accused led to an order dated July 18, 2022, which was affirmed by the impugned order. The CBI then approached the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: PMLA Accused Have Right to Get Copies of Material Not Relied on By ED
The competing precedents
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the CBI, relied on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, which held that an accused’s entitlement to seek an order under Section 91 of the CrPC would ordinarily not arise until the defence stage. Senior Advocate Arvind Kumar Gupta, for the accused, relied on Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 7 SCC 626, where a coordinate Bench read those observations as confined to what forms the record of the case for Section 227 of the CrPC, while also holding that an accused, though entitled to a list of unrelied-upon material, is ordinarily not entitled to copies at the stage of framing of charges. Pursuant to an earlier order of the Court, the accused filed an affidavit stating that he was not seeking the CBI’s source information or the case diaries.
The Bench chose not to decide between the two lines of authority. It proceeded on the premise that the accused is entitled to documents held by the prosecuting agency to shape his defence, and framed the real question as the stage at which they can be sought, to be answered with reference to each specific document.
Inspection now, production at trial
The Court noted that the seizure memos had already been produced and that the accused had given up his request for the registers and the source information. On the unrelied-upon documents, it held:
“The accused could examine such documents and seek for production of the specific document required at the appropriate time, when the appropriate witness is being examined either by the prosecution or the defence, for which purpose the CBI shall keep the files ready at the time of trial.”
As an alternative, the Court allowed the accused or his authorised representative to identify the particular documents needed at the time of inspection, in a note signed by both sides and filed before the trial court without delay, so that only those documents need be kept ready in court for the trial.
Documents not with the CBI
On the Building Committee minutes, which the accused says would absolve him, the Court held that if they are part of the seized records open for inspection, their production can be sought at the appropriate stage in the manner directed. If they are not with the CBI, the Bench said:
“If the same is not available with the CBI, then the accused would be entitled to procure the same and prove it in his defence evidence; either by resort to the Right to Information Act, 2005, or by producing a suitable witness at the time of defence. The evidentiary value of which will have to be assessed by the Trial Court.”
The CBI had categorically stated that the recordings, the January 2012 minutes and the technical bid were not in its possession, and had submitted that the appointment files of the two firms that were not charge-sheeted would not exculpate the accused. Documents that are not available with the agency, the Court held, cannot be ordered to be produced by it. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal was disposed of.
The Supreme Court’s order concerns only the production of documents. The charges against the accused remain to be tried, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the ruling matters
Requests for unrelied-upon documents are a frequent cause of delay at the charge stage in agency prosecutions. Without settling the tension between Debendra Nath Padhi and Sarla Gupta, the order offers a practical route: inspection of the seized material early, a signed list of what the accused actually needs, and production timed to the examination of the relevant witness. It also makes clear that the prosecution cannot be directed to produce what it does not have, leaving the accused free to bring such material in through RTI or defence witnesses.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4618 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17158 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 INSC 1064
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 25, 2026
Appearance: Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for the CBI; Senior Advocate Arvind Kumar Gupta for the respondent