Unrelied Documents: When Can the Accused Obtain and Use Material Left Out by the Prosecution?

The prosecution may decide not to rely on a document collected during investigation. That decision does not necessarily prevent the accused from using it. A document which does not support the prosecution may still help explain the accused’s conduct, challenge a witness or expose a gap in the case.

However, access to a list, inspection of documents, production before the court and use as evidence are different steps. The Supreme Court’s decisions must be understood with these distinctions in mind.

The recent decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit, 2026 INSC 1064, decided on 25 September 2026, provides a particularly useful explanation.

Anil Dixit: documents can be produced when the relevant witness is examined

Anil Dixit had applied under Section 91 CrPC for several categories of documents. These included seizure memos, committee-meeting records and documents seized during investigation but not relied upon in the charge-sheet. The trial court passed production orders, which the CBI challenged.

The CBI supplied certain documents, disputed others and stated that some were not in its possession. For the voluminous unrelied material, it offered inspection.

The Supreme Court did not direct indiscriminate supply of every document requested. Instead, it dealt with the categories separately.

In paragraph 11, it permitted the accused to inspect the unrelied documents and identify particular documents for production when the relevant prosecution or defence witness was examined. Alternatively, the documents could be identified during inspection in a written record signed by both parties and placed before the trial court without delay.

For committee minutes said to support the defence, the Court explained that records available with the CBI could be sought through this procedure. If unavailable with the CBI, the accused could procure and prove them through an appropriate route, including a suitable defence witness. Their evidentiary value remained for the trial court to decide.

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the trial court to proceed according to its directions.

The important point is that production of an identified document is not invariably postponed until defence evidence. It may be appropriate when the relevant prosecution witness is being examined. But the judgment does not confer an unrestricted right to demand copies of the entire investigation record before charges.

Citation: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anil Dixit, 2026 INSC 1064, Criminal Appeal No. 4618 of 2026, decided 25 September 2026, paragraphs 2–14. [Judgment PDF, reproduced by LiveLaw](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/29/4776920262026-09-25-703284.pdf).

Manoj: the accused should know what the prosecution has not relied upon

In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court considered appeals arising from a triple-murder prosecution. It identified shortcomings concerning a police officer’s role in the investigation and call-detail records which had not been produced.

Although other evidence sustained the convictions, the Court recognised the potential prejudice caused by withholding investigation material.

At paragraph 179, it directed the prosecution to furnish a list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits not relied upon by the investigating officer. Trial courts were required to ensure compliance.

This is significant because an accused cannot make an informed request for a document without knowing that it exists. However, a list identifying unused material is not the same thing as automatic delivery of copies of all that material.

Citation: Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, Criminal Appeal Nos. 248–250 of 2015, decided 20 May 2022, paragraphs 170–179. [Supreme Court judgment](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/41472/41472_2014_2_1502_36034_Judgement_20-May-2022.pdf).

Before charges: the ordinary restriction

In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, a three-judge Bench considered whether defence material could be introduced at the charge-framing stage.

The Court held that this stage ordinarily concerns the prosecution record. It is not an opportunity to conduct a full trial of the defence version. Section 91 CrPC cannot ordinarily be used by the accused to introduce defence material at that stage merely because it may eventually assist the defence.

The necessity of a document must therefore be assessed in relation to the stage and purpose for which it is sought.

Citation: State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, decided 29 November 2004, particularly paragraph 25. [Judgment reproduced on the Judicial Academy Jharkhand website](https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/09_discharge/State_Of_Orissa_vs_Debendra_Nath_Padhi_on_29_November,_2004.PDF).

Nitya Dharmananda: the court can intervene where crucial material is withheld

In Nitya Dharmananda, the accused sought the entire investigation material omitted from the charge-sheet. The High Court allowed the request, but the Supreme Court set its order aside.

The Supreme Court nevertheless recognised a narrow qualification. If material withheld by the investigator or prosecutor is of “sterling quality” and has a crucial bearing on framing charges, the court may summon it in the interests of justice.

The distinction is important: the accused does not acquire an unrestricted right to introduce a defence case before charges, but the court is not compelled to ignore crucial material merely because it was omitted from the charge-sheet.

Citation: Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2114–2115 of 2017, decided 7 December 2017, paragraphs 6–10. [Supreme Court judgment](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/33518/33518_2016_Judgement_07-Dec-2017.pdf).

Ponnusamy: relevance and timely applications matter

In P. Ponnusamy, the accused sought documents while the High Court was dealing with criminal appeals and a death-sentence reference.

The majority explained that potentially helpful material does not become inaccessible simply because the investigating agency failed to forward it to court. However, paragraph 17 placed the ordinary disclosure opportunity discussed there at the trial stage, after charges. Production depended on relevance to the defence; repeated attempts to delay proceedings could be refused.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the request had been pursued through a late letter despite earlier opportunities. A proper application should have been made in time.

Read with Anil Dixit, the practical position is that the particular document, its purpose and the relevant witness or procedural stage must be identified.

Citation: P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 1926 of 2022, decided 7 November 2022, majority opinion of U.U. Lalit CJI and S. Ravindra Bhat J., paragraphs 13–19. [Supreme Court judgment](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/31008/31008_2022_1_1505_39620_Judgement_07-Nov-2022.pdf).

The procedure under BNSS

Section 230 BNSS, corresponding to Section 207 CrPC, governs supply of prosecution papers in police-report cases. Its statutory supply obligation should not be confused with a general right to copies of every unused investigation document.

Section 94 BNSS, corresponding to Section 91 CrPC, provides the principal mechanism for summoning a document whose production the court considers necessary or desirable.

At the defence-evidence stage, Section 256(3) BNSS applies in Sessions trials and Section 266(2) in warrant cases instituted on a police report before a Magistrate. Both provide for process to obtain defence evidence, subject to the specified grounds for refusal.

These judgments arose under the CrPC. Their principles must be applied alongside the corresponding BNSS provisions and the savings in Section 531; not every older proceeding automatically shifts to BNSS. [Official BNSS text: Sections 94, 230, 256, 266 and 531](https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/20099/1/eng.pdf).

Conclusion

An accused should identify the particular unused material, explain its relevance and seek the appropriate order at the appropriate stage.

Before charges, the ordinary restriction recognised in Debendra Nath Padhi applies, subject to the court-controlled exception in Nitya Dharmananda. During trial, Anil Dixit confirms that identified documents may be produced when the relevant prosecution or defence witness is examined.

The prosecution’s decision not to rely on a document does not settle whether it can assist the defence. Equally, an application for disclosure is not a licence to obtain every investigation paper or delay the trial.

© C&C Law Chambers. All rights reserved.

#IndianLaw #SupremeCourt #LegalAwareness