Calcutta High Court rules Section 94 BNSS as a supplementary tool for evidence production during investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The Calcutta High Court has clarified the scope of Section 94 BNSS, calling it a supplementary legal mechanism to ensure access to relevant documents during criminal proceedings.
Section 94 BNSS Not Merely Procedural, Says Calcutta High Court
In a significant interpretation of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Calcutta High Court has held that Section 94 acts as a supplementary tool to aid in the discovery and production of relevant documents and materials during the investigation, inquiry, or trial stages of a criminal proceeding.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, stresses that the provision should not be viewed as a mere procedural formality but as a critical legal instrument to avoid failure of justice by enabling access to material evidence that is not already on record.
Objective of Section 94: Preventing Suppression of Truth
The court observed that the purpose of Section 94 is to empower investigating agencies and the courts to seek production of documents or other evidence that may be crucial for the administration of justice.
Quoting directly from the judgment, Justice Ghosh stated:
“The ultimate object behind Section 94 of BNSS is to confer power in the hands of the Court or, in case of pending investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, to produce document or other thing which the Court or the police authorities deem relevant and cogent… This power is supplementary and is available for unearthing truth… for preventing failure of justice.”
This interpretation aligns the BNSS provision with long-standing judicial principles that investigative and judicial mechanisms should have the flexibility to reach the truth through evidence, especially where such material is not voluntarily disclosed or already on record.
What Does Section 94 of BNSS Say?
Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which replaced similar provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), allows courts and police officers to summon the production of any document or thing that is necessary for any ongoing criminal proceeding.
This section plays a pivotal role in evidence collection, especially when crucial documents or articles are not in the possession of the investigating agency, and might be with third parties, individuals, or institutions.
Justice Ghosh emphasized that this power must be used judiciously but effectively, ensuring that the investigative process is not handicapped by procedural gaps.
Context of the Case
Although the judgment did not delve into a high-profile controversy, it arose from a routine criminal investigation where the investigating officer sought court permission under Section 94 to obtain certain documents deemed crucial to the case.
The defense had objected, arguing that the move was invasive and lacked specific detailing of why the documents were necessary. The court, however, rejected this argument, noting that Section 94’s design enables rather than restricts access to potential evidence, provided that relevance and necessity are established prima facie.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
Legal experts have welcomed the High Court’s clarification, especially in light of the recent transition from the CrPC to BNSS. The ruling offers the first significant judicial exposition on how the procedural powers under the BNSS should be interpreted — not as limitations, but as tools to reinforce investigative integrity.
Advocate Shreya Dutta, a criminal law practitioner, told The Legal Observer:
“This judgment reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to the principle that justice must not be sacrificed due to lack of access to relevant material. Section 94 has been framed broadly for a reason — this ruling upholds that vision.”
Reinforcing the Investigative Mandate
The Court made it clear that the production of documents under Section 94 is not confined to trial stages and is equally applicable during investigation or inquiry, where establishing the factual narrative is crucial.
Justice Ghosh’s judgment encourages both investigating officers and magistrates to utilise Section 94 proactively, ensuring that relevant evidence is not left undiscovered due to procedural inertia or overcautious interpretation.
This comes at a time when the Indian criminal justice system is undergoing significant procedural reform through the BNSS, and such rulings provide crucial interpretative clarity.
Aiding Investigative Fairness, Not Invasion
The ruling carefully balances the need for effective investigation with individual privacy and procedural safeguards. The Court reminded that any production sought must pass the basic threshold of relevance and necessity, and that courts must apply their judicial mind before passing orders under this section.
Broader Implications and Future Usage
This precedent is likely to be cited in future proceedings, especially during white-collar crime investigations, cybercrime probes, and cases where evidence lies in private or institutional custody.
As the BNSS begins to shape new contours in criminal procedure, the Calcutta High Court’s ruling will likely serve as foundational jurisprudence for interpreting similar provisions.
For more updates on procedural law and judicial interpretations, visit our Insight section and subscribe to National Legal News from The Legal Observer.
Catch in-depth legal analysis on our YouTube channel.
Internal Links Used:
- https://thelegalobserver.com/category/news/national/
- https://thelegalobserver.com/category/views/insight/
- https://thelegalobserver.com/videos/
