ORDER : The challenge in this Cri.M.C. is to the order dated 12.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2023 in SC (PMLA) 04/2023 on the file of the Special Court for the trial of offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Ernakulam (the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam). The State of Kerala challenges the order refusing the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by the Chief Investigating Officer of the Special Investigation Team constituted to investigate the financial/loan scam of Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank Limited. Facts:- 2. The Secretary-in-charge of the Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd filed a complaint before the Irinjalakuda Police against six persons on 14.07.2021 alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 465 r/w 34 of IPC. The Police registered an FIR alleging the aforesaid offences. As per order No.D3-108924/201/PHQ dated 21.07.2021, the investigation of the case was transferred to the Crime Branch, which registered Crime No. Cr.165/CB/TSR/R/21. During the investigation, offences under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (PC Act for short) were added. Accordingly, the case was transferred to the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur on 30.05.2022. The investigating agency found that the accused committed financial fraud and misappropriation with the connivance of the members of the Board of Directors of the Bank. 3. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, by order dated 30.01.2023, attached 58 items of immovable properties. The Court also ordered the seizure of a vehicle and sale of the same in public auction. The Investigating Agency also found that the accused abused their official position by conjointly conspiring to issue illegal loans with fake names and addresses by, creating forged documents in the name of 180 persons from 2011 to 2020, and obtained loans and misappropriated the same. The accused created fake loans without the knowledge and consent of the persons in the name of whom loans were sanctioned by forging their handwriting, signatures, fingerprints and creating false documents. They siphoned off the entire loan amount so disbursed for their own purpose. 4. While the Crime Branch was proceeding with the investigation, the Officials of the Enforcement Directorate, Zonal Office, Kochi, conducted a search in the Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd in the month of August 2022 and seized several documents. 5. They siphoned off the entire loan amount so disbursed for their own purpose. 4. While the Crime Branch was proceeding with the investigation, the Officials of the Enforcement Directorate, Zonal Office, Kochi, conducted a search in the Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd in the month of August 2022 and seized several documents. 5. The Chief Investigating Officer of the Special Investigation Team of the Crime Branch thereafter issued a letter to the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate on 20.08.2022 requesting to take urgent necessary steps to make available the original files in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate. The Investigating Officer did not get any reply from the Enforcement Directorate. On 25.08.2022, the Enforcement Directorate seized 162 files containing loan documents that were earlier kept by them in a sealed room in the Bank by preparing a seizure memo. 6. On 25.08.2022, the Chief Investigating Officer again sent a request to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate to return the original loan files. In response to this letter, the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate sent a reply informing that as per Section 21(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the PMLA’ for short), only the party from whom the documents were seized is entitled to get the copy of the documents/records and informed that it might be procured from the adjudicating authority at New Delhi. By that time, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint as per the provisions of the PMLA and produced the relevant files before the Special Court dealing with PMLA cases. 7. The Chief Investigating Officer then filed Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2023 in SC (PMLA) 04/2023 under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with an affidavit specifying the details of the same, seeking permission to seize the files from the custody of the Court for the purpose of investigation. The learned Special Judge dismissed the application as per the impugned order. 8. I have heard Sri. T.A. Shaji, the learned Director General of Prosecution, Sri. ARL Sundaresan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, and Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate. 9. The learned DGP submitted that the investigating officer of the Special Investigation Team has the only option to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. to get custody of the documents. ARL Sundaresan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, and Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate. 9. The learned DGP submitted that the investigating officer of the Special Investigation Team has the only option to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. to get custody of the documents. The learned DGP submitted that the investigation into the predicate offences is of prime importance as only after proving the predicate offences the prosecution under Section 3 of the PMLA would lie. It is submitted that the predicate offences include the offences of forgery and related offences and expert examination of the forged documents by the Forensic Science Laboratory is a pivotal and cogent evidence for the successful and foolproof investigation of the crime, which is mandatory for successful prosecution of the offence, under the PMLA. It is submitted that to attract the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, it is to be established that the offenders were involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. For the successful prosecution of the case, it is highly required to establish that the offenders committed the predicate scheduled offences which would finally benefit both the investigating agencies in successfully prosecuting the matter. 10. The learned DGP relied on Selvaraj v. Sarakunju Wilson [ 2010 (3) KLT 124 ], Sama Piyushbhai Shah v. Madanlal Hastimal Rathi [MANU/GJ/2413/2019], Bhagwan Sahai and Ors V. Manoj Kumar and Ors. [2016 Cri LJ 4714 = MANU/RH/0208/2016] and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ] in support of his contentions. 11. The learned ASGI submitted that the State Investigating Agency should have approached the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, to get custody of the documents produced before the Special Court for the trial of PMLA cases. The learned ASGI further submitted that the ‘Court’ referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C. is the Court where the State Investigating Agency filed FIR and not the Court where the Enforcement Directorate produced the documents. 12. It is profitable to extract Section 91 of Cr.P.C. “91. The learned ASGI further submitted that the ‘Court’ referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C. is the Court where the State Investigating Agency filed FIR and not the Court where the Enforcement Directorate produced the documents. 12. It is profitable to extract Section 91 of Cr.P.C. “91. Summons to produce document or other thing.-- (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2)Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3)Nothing in this section shall be deemed- (a) to affect, sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers‘ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.” 13. The powers conferred under Section 91 are enabling in nature, aimed at arming the court or any officer-in-charge of the Police Station concerned, to enforce and ensure the production of any document or other things, “necessary or desirable“, for any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code, by issuing a summons or a written order to those in possesssion of such material. The language of Section 91 undoubtedly indicates the width of the powers to be unlimited, but the in-built limitation inherent therein takes its colour and shape from the compulsions of necessity and desirability to fullfill the task or acheive the object. 14. The sine qua non under this Section is a consideration by the Court that the production of a document concerned is desirable and necessary. 14. The sine qua non under this Section is a consideration by the Court that the production of a document concerned is desirable and necessary. The power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is curtailed only by the provisions in the non-obstante clause contained in the Section qualified by the limitations prescribed in Section 92 Cr.P.C. 15. While considering the scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C. in Selvaraj v. Sarakunju Wilson (Supra), this Court observed thus:- “5.It is also not as if the Investigating Officer is helpless in the matter. Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. makes it within the power of an officer in charge of a police station if he considered production of any document or other thing to be necessary or “desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrP.C. to issue a written order to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be requiring such person to attend and produce such document or thing or to produce the same at the time and place stated in the order. The said provision has to be read along with Section 92 of the CrP.C. which states that so far as any document, parcel or thing in the custody of the postal authority is concerned, such power can be exercised (only) by the courts mentioned therein. In otherwords the power of an officer in charge of a police station under Section 91 is curtailed only by Section 92 of the CrP.C. that if the demand is in relation to a document, parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority such order shall be issued (only) by the courts stated therein. Dealing with Section 91 of the CrP.C. it is stated that the document or thing called for must have some relation to or connection with tile subject matte of the investigation, inquiry or trial and throw 8 some light on the proceeding or be some link in the chain of evidence.” 16. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Surendra Mohan Sarin and Ors. v. K.P.ManiTripathi and Ors. [1986 Crl LJ 1324] held that the provisions in Section 91 has to be liberally construed in order to find whether the production of any document or any other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Surendra Mohan Sarin and Ors. v. K.P.ManiTripathi and Ors. [1986 Crl LJ 1324] held that the provisions in Section 91 has to be liberally construed in order to find whether the production of any document or any other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation. The Allahabad High Court observed thus:- “7……… The proceeding before an Investigating Officer is purely investigatory rather than adjudicatory in nature. Investigation is an informal proceeding held to obtain information to govern a future action as distinguished from a proceeding which is taken as against any person. Such a proceeding has no parties. It is non-adversary. It contemplates procedure which is less formal and more flexible. The investigatory and inquisitorial powers of police agencies through which they acquire information on which they act may be called as preliminary to their legislative action as a step in adjudicatory or determinative action. If an investigation is duly authorised, it is no more subject to obstruction by passing orders which may annul it. 17. In Sama Piyushbhai Shah v. Madanlal Hastimal Rathi (Supra), the Gujarat High Court considered whether a Civil Court can hand over the original of a Will to the Police for the investigation into the allegations of forgery. The Court held that though the Civil Court has the power to decide the genuineness of the Will concerned, when there is a question relating to forgery or fabrication of a Will, then Criminal Law will come into play, and the necessity is to complete the investigation of the criminal case for which the investigating agency required the original document. Based on the above observation, the Court directed that the original Will be handed over to the Investigating Officer for examination through the FSL. 18. In Bhagwan Sahai and Ors Vs. Manoj Kumar and Ors. (Supra), the Jaipur Bench of the Rajastan High Court held that a document which has been allegedly forged and fabricated and filed in a civil or criminal court can be handed over to the investigating agency for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 19. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra), a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on the powers under Section 91observed thus:- “27. 19. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (Supra), a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on the powers under Section 91observed thus:- “27. Insofar as Section 91 is concerned, it was rightly held that the width of the powers of that section was unlimited but there were inbuilt, inherent limitations as to the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurate with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfil the task or achieve the object.” 20. The Enforcement Directorate conceded that the documents and files seized by them from the Co-operative Bank are required for Forensic Analysis and completing the investigation of the predicate offences of fraud and forgery, which form the basis of the money laundering case investigated by them. However, they contended that the petitioner should have approached the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, where they initiated the prosecution for invoking the provision of Section 91 Cr.P.C. The trial Court held that the documents cannot be allowed to be seized from the custody of the Court, and the only possible option is that with the assistance of scientific experts, the petitioner can copy the images of impressions and signatures in the documents produced by the respondent along with the complaint from the office of the Court for forensic analysis. 21. I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the Enforcement Directorate and the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge dealing with the PMLA cases. 22. The ‘Court’ referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C.is not confined only to the Court where the petitioner filed FIR. It can be the Court or any public office where the documents have been produced or kept in custody. 23. The prayer in the petition filed by the Investigating Officer is to permit him to seize the files produced before the Court. The learned Special Judge might have focused on the phraseology ‘seizure of the documents’ used by the investigating agency in the petition to come to a conclusion that they cannot seize the documents from the custody of the Court. It can only be treated as a request to the Court to hand over the documents from the custody of the Court to the investigating agency. It can only be treated as a request to the Court to hand over the documents from the custody of the Court to the investigating agency. In the given circumstances, Section 91 Cr.P.C. contemplates handing over of the custody of the relevant documents from the Court to the Investigating agency. Propriety demanded that the investigating officer should have requested the trial Court to hand over the relevant files to him for the purpose of investigation rather than seeking permission of the Court to effect seizure of the same from the custody of the Court. 24. In the present case, the petitioner-investigating agency is investigating the offences of forgery and related offences. Comparison of the writings and signatures in those documents seized from the Co-Operative Bank with the admitted writing and signatures of the offenders is required for establishing the offence of forgery for which those documents are to be sent for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Finger Print Bureau. The documents and the files seized by the Enforcement Directorate and produced before the Court are required to facilitate forensic analysis to complete the investigation of the predicate offences of fraud and forgery which are the foundation of the money laundering cases investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. 25. The learned ASGI submitted that the entire 162 files have not been produced before the Court, and some of them are kept in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate for investigation. 26. This Court takes note of the delay in the examination of the documents in the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Finger Print Bureau. The learned DGP has appeared for the additional respondents and made an undertaking on behalf of them that the examination will be completed as expeditiously as possible. 27. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The order dated 12.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2023 in SC (PMLA) 04/2023 of the Special Court is set aside. The Court below is directed to hand over the relevant files produced by the Enforcement Directorate before the Court to the Chief Investigating Officer of the Special Investigating Team constituted for the investigation of the Crime No. Cr.165/CB/TSR/R/21. On receipt of the files, the petitioner shall take the necessary steps to send the files or relevant materials for expert examination. The Court below is directed to hand over the relevant files produced by the Enforcement Directorate before the Court to the Chief Investigating Officer of the Special Investigating Team constituted for the investigation of the Crime No. Cr.165/CB/TSR/R/21. On receipt of the files, the petitioner shall take the necessary steps to send the files or relevant materials for expert examination. The Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, the Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur and the Director, State Finger Print Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram (Additional respondent Nos.2 to 4) shall see that the analysis/examination is completed within two months from the date of receipt of the relevant documents by the laboratory concerned.