Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahendrakumar Kanhyalal Jain, was the accused in Summary Criminal Case No. 3061/2003 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon, arising out of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent, Shri Mahavir Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited, had lodged the complaint alleging that the petitioner had obtained a loan and issued a cheque for Rs. 72,16,911/- drawn on United Western Bank Ltd., Jalgaon, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After a statutory notice, the petitioner failed to pay the amount. During the trial, the respondent-complainant filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking summons to the accused to produce documents in his custody or possession, namely the loan account statement and other related documents, to rebut the defence of the accused. The learned Magistrate allowed the application and issued summons to the accused to produce those documents. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present criminal writ petition challenging the legality of the summons. The High Court framed the question of law as to whether summons can be issued against the accused calling upon him to produce documents in his custody or possession in a criminal trial, wherein the complainant wants to rebut the defence of the accused. The court heard submissions from both sides. The petitioner argued that such a summons would violate the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The respondent contended that the documents were necessary for a fair trial. The court, after considering the provisions of Section 91 CrPC and the constitutional protection, held that the accused cannot be compelled to produce documents that may incriminate him. The court observed that the complainant has the burden to prove its case and cannot shift the burden to the accused by compelling him to produce documents. The court quashed the impugned order and the summons issued to the accused, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summons to Accused to Produce Documents - Section 91, 311 CrPC, 1973 - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The court considered whether a complainant can compel the accused to produce documents in his custody to rebut the defence. Held that such a summons would violate the accused's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and is not permissible under Section 91 CrPC. The court quashed the summons issued to the accused. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether summons can be issued against the accused calling upon him to produce documents in his custody or possession in a criminal trial, wherein the complainant wants to rebut the defence of the accused.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order and summons issued to the accused to produce documents.
Law Points
- Summons to accused to produce documents
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 91 CrPC
- Section 311 CrPC
- Right against self-incrimination
- Article 20(3) Constitution of India
