Fair Trial Jurisprudence: Delhi High Court Rules on Production of Original DRT Records and Un-relied Documents under Section 91 CrPC
The interplay between civil recovery proceedings and criminal prosecution often creates complex procedural challenges in white-collar crime litigation. A pivotal question frequently arises regarding the extent of the prosecution's obligation to produce original records that are part of parallel civil proceedings, such as those before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
In a recent significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs CBI addressed the scope of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)—now corresponding to Section 94 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court examined whether an accused can compel the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce original judicial records from the DRT and the outcome of prior complaints when copies of such documents have already been supplied as "un-relied documents."
This detailed analysis explores the factual matrix, the legal contentions regarding the suppression of evidence, and the High Court’s interpretation of the rights of the accused versus the procedural limitations of the investigating agency.
Factual Background of the Case
The legal dispute centers around a petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 482 of the CrPC. The petitioner, Shambhu Prasad Singh, challenged a common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on 14.05.2025. The Trial Court had dismissed two specific applications moved by the petitioner under Section 91 CrPC seeking the summoning of documents.
The Corporate Loan and Default
The petitioner served as a Director for M/s Dynamic Shells (India) Pvt. Ltd. (DSIPL) (referred to as Accused No. 1). The company was incorporated during the 2007-2008 period with the primary business objective of manufacturing weather-proof PVC shelters.
Initially, the company maintained banking relations with Syndicate Bank. However, seeking to restructure its financial obligations, the company approached Punjab National Bank (PNB) on 25.11.2009 to take over its existing credit limits. Following due diligence, PNB sanctioned various credit facilities through a formal letter dated 18.02.2010.
Subsequently, the company sought a temporary enhancement of its Cash Credit facilities. The request was to increase the limit from Rs. 650 lakhs to Rs. 1800 lakhs. This application was made in November 2010 and received approval from the bank vide a letter dated 12.01.2011.
Classification as NPA and Civil Proceedings
Financial discipline appears to have deteriorated shortly thereafter. PNB declared the account of DSIPL as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in December 2011. To recover its dues, the bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, issuing a notice under Section 13(2) on 03.02.2012.
Parallel to the statutory notices, PNB filed two substantive Recovery Applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), New Delhi:
- O.A. No. 84/2013
- O.A. No. 102/2013
During the period of 2013 to 2014, the bank and the corporate entity were engaged in negotiations for a One-Time Settlement (OTS), attempting to resolve the debt amicably.
Initiation of Criminal Prosecution
While civil recovery efforts were underway, the criminal machinery was set in motion. The CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) bearing number RC/BD1/2014/E/0003 in January 2014. This FIR was predicated on a written complaint dated 17.01.2014 filed by Sh. Rajeev Azad, the then Chief Manager of PNB. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted to the competent court in 2015.