Accused Cannot Demand Company and Bank Records During Investigation To Answer Queries: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an accused cannot invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek production of company and bank records during an ongoing investigation merely to help him answer questions during interrogation, ruling that such a demand would amount to allowing the accused to interfere with the investigation. Dismissing a petition filed by Shantanu Prakash, former director of Educomp Infrastructure and School Management Limited, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, "The purpose of interrogation is to elicit the truth based on the personal knowledge of the accused. If the Petitioner does not remember details due to the passage of time or lack of records, he is entitled to state the same to the Investigating Officer. The law does not compel an accused to answer questions that are factually impossible for him to answer; it merely requires him to cooperate with the investigation." Prakash had approached the court seeking directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation and a consortium of banks to supply him with company documents so that he could respond to queries raised during the investigation. He relied on section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code that allows courts or police to summon documents if they are considered necessary for an investigation or trial. The High Court, however, clarified that this power is meant to assist the investigation or the court, and not to enable an accused to demand documents at the investigation stage for his own convenience in answering questions. Prakash was a director of Educomp between September 2006 and February 2018. The company had availed term loans from a consortium of banks between 2009 and 2013. After Educomp faced financial difficulties, it was admitted to insolvency proceedings in April 2018, following which its board was suspended and all company records were taken over by the resolution professional. Based on a complaint filed by the State Bank of India, the CBI registered an FIR in June 2021 against Educomp and Prakash, alleging offences involving cheating, criminal breach of trust and corruption, and claiming wrongful loss of about ₹806.07 crore to lender banks. During the investigation, the CBI issued a summons to Prakash in September 2023, asking him to answer queries relating to transactions from 2007 to 2010. Prakash argued that he could not answer questions about transactions that were 13 to 15 years old without access to company records, which were no longer in his possession due to the insolvency process. After his requests for documents from the banks, the CBI and the new management of Educomp were declined, he moved the trial court seeking an order for their production. Rejecting the plea, the High Court noted that the documents sought were of Prakash's own company and were documents he had himself submitted during insolvency proceedings, and therefore could not be said to be beyond his reach. The court also recorded that the investigating officer already had these documents and was confronting Prakash with them during questioning. “This Application is an oblique way to procure the documents, which he can do independently" The court emphasised that investigation is the exclusive domain of the investigating agency and that an accused cannot demand that documents be supplied to him during questioning to facilitate his answers. It clarified that documents sought for the purpose of defence can be claimed at a later stage, after the investigation is complete and a charge sheet is filed. However, the court added that fairness must be maintained, and directed that if an accused is confronted with voluminous or old documents, the investigating officer should give sufficient time to go through them before recording answers. Case Title: Shantanu Prakash v. CBI and Ors. Case Number: CRL. M.C. 579/2024 and CRL. M.A. 2371/2024 For Petitioner: Advocates Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Neena Nagpal, Malak Bhatt, Vishvendra Tomar, Tannavi Sharma, Rashvendra Tomar and Nishtha Juneja. For Respondent: SPP Anupam S. Sharma with Advocates Harpreet Kalsi, Vashisht Rao, Ripudaman Sharma, Vishesh Jain, Riya Sachdeva, and Anant Mishra.; Advocates Chatanya Sharma, Shitij Chakravarty and Udhav Hari Agarwal for Educomp; Advocates O.P.Gaggar, Sachindra Karn for Union Bank, AOR Sanjay Kapur with Advocates Surya Prakash and Akanksha Bhatia for SBI.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Accused Cannot Demand Company and Bank Records During Investigation To Answer Queries: Delhi High Court

Shivangi Bhardwaj

Tags