1 .This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’) in Crl.M.P. No.157 of 2026 in C.C.No.93 of 2024, where under the petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the Investigating Officer to file the Scrutiny Report/Source Report was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of this criminal petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is sole accused in C.C.No.93 of 2024 pending before the trial Court and he is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (for short, “the P.C. Act”). Before the trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 46 were examined and the Investigating Officer was examined as PW.47 and when the matter was posted for his cross-examination, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2026 invoking the provisions of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to direct PW.47 to produce the Scrutiny Report/Source Report which was submitted to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.
3. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.K.Rajashekar, learned counsel, representing Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing on behalf of respondent, through video conference.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1 Learned counsel submitted that PW.47 in his chief-examination deposed that after scrutiny of the documents, which were seized from the petitioner, he submitted a report to the Director General, ACB, through proper channel and obtained permission for registration of the case. Accordingly, he registered a case in Crime No.5/ACB-CIUHYD/ 2011. The Scrutiny Report/Source Report submitted by PW.47 is a material document and the said document is necessary for the purpose of his cross-examination. The learned trial Court without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground that the communication made by PW.47 to the public officer in official confidence and by virtue of the provisions of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (for short, “the Act”) the petitioner is not entitled to seek production of the said document.
4.2 He further submitted that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report is the conclusion drawn by PW.47 with respect to the results of the search conducted in the petitioner’s premises and other preliminary enquiries and the prosecution has not stated as to how the public interest would be affected if the document is produced. In spite of the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law.
4.3 In support of his contention, he relied upon the order dated 20.09.1956 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Brijnath Kedarnath vs. State (1957 CRILJ 188).
5. Submissions of the learned counsel for respondent:
5.1 Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the Source Report is an official communication made by PW.47 to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, seeking permission for registration of the case and the same is a privileged communication. As per the provisions of Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to seek production of such communication and the same would affect the public interest. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner is sole accused in C.C.No.93 of 2024 pending before the trial Court and he is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. The record further reveals that on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 46 were examined and PW.47/Investigating Officer was examined in chief and the matter was posted for his crossexamination. At that stage, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2026 on 15.04.2026 invoking the provisions of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the Investigating Officer to file Scrutiny Report/Source Report on the ground that PW.47 in his chiefexamination deposed that he analyzed the seized material, prepared source information report and submitted the same to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, through proper channel and obtained permission for registration of the case. Accordingly, he registered a case in Crime No.5/ACB-CIU-HYD/2011. Hence, the Scrutiny Report/Source Report submitted by PW.47 to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, is required for the purpose of his cross-examination.
7. The record further reveals that, in the said case, the respondent/prosecution filed a counter wherein it was specifically stated that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report is an official communication made by PW.47 to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, seeking permission to register the case, and that the said communication made between them in official confidence. As per the provisions of Section 124 of the Act, no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, especially the public interest would suffer by virtue of disclosure of such privileged communication.
8. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavit as well as the counter filed by the prosecution and after hearing the respective parties, dismissed the petition holding that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report submitted by PW.47 to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, seeking permission to register the case against the petitioner and the said communication between them in official confidence and as per the provisions of Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner cannot compel the prosecution for production of the said report.
9. It is relevant to extract Section 124 of the Act, which reads as under:
“124. Official communications:- No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.”
10. The record discloses that the specific case of the prosecution is that the Scrutiny Report/Source Report submitted by PW.47 to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, is a privileged communication and by virtue of Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner cannot compel PW.47 for production of such privileged communication and would detriment to the public interest as the petitioner is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Even PW.47 in his chief-examination stated that he analyzed the seized material and prepared the Source Information Report and submitted the same to the Director General, ACB for the purpose of obtaining permission to register the present crime. The communication made by one public officer, i.e., PW.47, to another public officer i.e., Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, in the discharge of their official duties and the same is a privileged communication. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for production of the Scrutiny Report/Source Report, by virtue of the privilege under Section 124 of the Act and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition.
11. The order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Brijnath Kedarnath (supra), is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground that PW.47 submitted source information report to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, seeking permission for registration of the case and the said communication between one public officer to another public officer in the discharge of their official duties.
12. It is relevant to mention that, in The State of A.P. v. Badapu Appanna and others (1962(1) Andh WR 256), the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that the privilege under Section 124 of the Act has been given not for the benefit of the person making the communication but for the protection of public interest, and the said provision specifically envisages to prevent disclosures which may be detrimental to public interest. The words “official confidence” indicates that the Section applies to communications made by one public officer to another public officer in the discharge of their official duties, and the protection is founded upon the confidential character of such official communications. The said principle also reiterated by the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in The Public Prosecutor v. Picky Syed Ismail and Another (1973 CRILJ 931).
13. In the case on hand also, PW.47 communicated the information to the other officer namely Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, and sought permission for registration of crime. The communication between PW.47 and Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, was made in the course of discharging their official duties and was, therefore, treated as a communication made in official confidence. In view of privilege claimed on the ground of public interest and also in view of Section 124 of the Act, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. The principle laid down in Badapu Appanna (supra) and Picky Syed Ismail (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case.
14. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the learned trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2026 in C.C.No.93 of 2024, to exercise the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
