Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered whether section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which empowers a court to summon a person to produce a document or thing, applies to an accused person. The case arose from prosecution of a registered money-lender for failure to maintain books under the Money-lenders' Act. During trial, the prosecution filed an application under section 94(1) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate seeking an order directing the accused to produce daily account book and ledger. The Magistrate rejected the application relying on Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the decision in Ranchhoddas Khimji Ashere v. Tempton Jehangir. The State filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, who disagreed and made a reference to the High Court recommending that the matter be remitted to the Magistrate to first ascertain whether the documents contained personal knowledge of the accused. The High Court agreed with the Sessions Judge that the decision in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad indicated that mere production of a document by an accused would not offend Article 20(3) unless the document contained statements based on personal knowledge, but then went further and considered whether the court had power to compel an accused person to produce a document. The High Court concluded that section 94 did not apply to an accused person and accordingly rejected the prosecution application. The State appealed to the Supreme Court on certificate under Article 134(1)(c). The Supreme Court, by a majority of four judges, dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court. The majority, per Sikri J., held that section 94(1) does not apply to an accused person. They reasoned that the general scheme of the Code and the basic concept of criminal law excluded accused persons from being compelled to produce documents; the generality of the word 'person' was of no significance; if the legislature intended to include accused it would have said so specifically; including accused would lead to grave hardship and make investigations unfair; the words 'attend and produce' were inept to cover an accused in custody; and in any event the power would be used only when documents are likely to incriminate. They also observed that even if this construction rendered section 96 useless for documents in the possession of an accused, a police officer could still use section 165 for a general search or inspection. The majority overruled the Full Bench decision in Satya Kinkar Ray v. Nikhil Chandra Jyotishopodhaya. Justice Shah dissented, holding that section 94(1) applies to accused persons because its words are general and contain no express or implied restriction; the scheme of the Code is consistent with this interpretation; refusing to produce on the ground of Article 20(3) would be a reasonable excuse under section 485 and not unlawful under section 175 IPC; and protection against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) applies only to proceedings in court, not to orders made by police during investigation. The final decision was that section 94(1) does not apply to an accused person, and the appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summons to Produce Document - Scope of Section 94(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 94 - Section 94(1) does not apply to an accused person; the word 'person' in its generality is not sufficient because the scheme of the Code and basic concept of criminal law exclude accused from compulsion to produce documents. Held that if the legislature intended to include accused it would have said so specifically, and including accused would cause hardship and unfairness in investigations. (Paras 459-465) B) Criminal Procedure - Interpretation - Words 'attend and produce' - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 94 - The phrase 'attend and produce' is inept to cover an accused person, especially when the order is issued by a police officer to an accused person in his custody; thus the section cannot be used to compel an accused. (Paras 459-464) C) Constitutional Law - Self-Incrimination - Article 20(3) - Constitution of India, Article 20(3) - Production of documents by an accused under section 94 would likely involve testimonial compulsion and incrimination because the power would be resorted to only when documents are likely to incriminate; the protection under Article 20(3) extends to accused persons. (Paras 462-465) D) Criminal Procedure - Search Warrant vs Summons - Sections 96 and 165 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 94, 96, 165 - Even if section 96 is rendered useless for documents in the possession of an accused because section 94 does not apply, a police officer can use section 165 to order a general search or inspection; hence no inconsistency arises. (Paras 464-465) E) Precedent - Overruling - Satya Kinkar Ray v. Nikhil Chandra Jyotishopodhaya - The Full Bench decision in I.L.R. [1952] 2 Cal. 106, which held section 94 applicable to accused, is overruled by the majority. (Paras 465) F) Dissenting View - Statutory Interpretation - Section 94(1) and Article 20(3) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 94, 96, 165, 485; Constitution of India, Article 20(3); Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 175 - Dissent held section 94(1) applies to an accused because its words are general and contain no express limitation; refusal to produce on ground of Article 20(3) would be a reasonable excuse under section 485 and the order would not be unlawful under section 175 IPC; but protection against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) applies only to proceedings in court, not to orders made by police during investigation. Held that excluding accused would make section 96 useless and be illogical since police can use section 165. (Paras 465-476)
Issue of Consideration
Whether section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies to an accused person, and whether an order compelling an accused to produce documents violates the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Supreme Court by majority (4:1) dismissed appeals and upheld High Court ruling that section 94(1) CrPC does not apply to an accused person; Shah J. dissented.
Law Points
- Section 94(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898 does not apply to an accused person
- the general word 'person' does not include accused in the context of the Code
- the words 'attend and produce' are inapt for an accused
- especially in custody
- compelling an accused to produce documents would violate the spirit of Article 20(3) and cause hardship
- even if section 96 is rendered ineffective for accused's documents
- police can use section 165 for search or inspection
- Satya Kinkar Ray v. Nikhil Chandra Jyotishopodhaya overruled
- dissenting view that section 94 applies due to general words and no express limitation
- refusal to produce on ground of Article 20(3) would be reasonable excuse under section 485 CrPC and not unlawful under section 175 IPC.
