Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a private complaint lodged by a retired assistant teacher against the office bearers of an educational institution, alleging offences under Sections 177, 192, 196, 199, 405, 408, 418, 420, 424, 468 and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The police, after investigation, filed a 'B' report, indicating closure of the case. The complainant then filed a protest petition. On 7 December 2018, when the trial court posted the matter for recording her sworn statement, she moved an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the accused (the petitioners) to produce certain documents in their custody. The trial court allowed the application and issued summons to the accused to produce the documents. The accused challenged this order before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., contending that it violated their fundamental right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, which held that the term 'person' in Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. does not include an accused person on trial and that compelling an accused to produce self-incriminating documents amounts to compelling him to be a witness against himself. The complainant and the State argued that the order was valid as Section 91 does not exempt accused persons. The High Court, after perusing Section 91 and the Supreme Court's dictum, found substance in the petitioners' contention. It held that the trial court could not have directed the accused to produce documents which might incriminate them, as that would contravene Article 20(3). The court accordingly quashed the order dated 7 December 2018 and all further proceedings against the petitioners arising from that order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Summons to Produce Documents - Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Right Against Self-Incrimination - Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - The trial court allowed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. directing the accused to produce documents during a pre-summoning stage in a private complaint alleging IPC offences. The High Court, relying on State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, held that the term 'person' in Section 91 does not include an accused, and compelling document production would violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination. The order was set aside and all further proceedings arising out of it were quashed. (Paras 3, 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. directing an accused to produce documents violates the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the trial court's order dated 07.12.2018 directing production of documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C., holding that an accused cannot be compelled to produce self-incriminating documents, following Supreme Court precedent. All further proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Law Points
- Right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
- interpretation of 'person' in Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to exclude accused
- accused cannot be compelled to produce self-incriminating documents
- Supreme Court precedent in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi binding
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (04) 36
Criminal Petition No.200175 of 2019
R. S. Lagali (for petitioners), Gururaj V. Hasilkar (for respondent No.1), Shivanand V. Pattanashetti (for respondent No.2)
Smt. Salima Begum, Mohinuddin, Shaikh Mirza @ Shaikh Meera
State of Karnataka, Smt. Abeda Begum
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash trial court order allowing application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. directing accused to produce documents.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (accused) sought quashing of the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Vijayapura in Private Complaint No.7/2017, which directed them to produce documents.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed an application by the complainant (respondent No.2) under Section 91 Cr.P.C. directing the accused to produce certain records, allegedly violating their right against self-incrimination.
Previous Decisions
The police had filed a 'B' report after investigation on the private complaint; complainant filed a protest petition; the trial court scheduled the matter for sworn statement but instead allowed application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for document production. The order was challenged before the High Court.
Issues
Whether an order under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. compelling an accused to produce documents violates the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that being accused, directing them to produce documents amounts to self-incrimination, violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution, relying on State of Gujarat vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi and Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala.
Respondent No.2 argued that Section 91 Cr.P.C. applies to any person, including accused, and mere production of documents does not amount to self-incrimination.
State argued in support of the order.
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'person' in Section 91 of Cr.P.C. does not include an accused person on trial, and a court cannot compel an accused to produce documents that would be self-incriminating, as that violates the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are accused persons in this case. If any order passed directing them to produce documents would certainly amounts to violation of right against self-incrimination. Article 20 sub-clause (3) of Constitution of India says ‘No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself’.
On careful perusal of the above provision, now it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supeme Court in the case of Shyamlal stated supra, wherein it is held that the term ‘person’ does not include an accused person on trial. In other words, the Court cannot insist the accused to produce the document by invoking the provision under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. which is considered to be self incriminating against him.
Procedural History
Respondent No.2 filed private complaint alleging IPC offences; matter referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; police filed 'B' report; complainant filed protest petition; trial court posted for sworn statement but allowed application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. directing accused to produce documents; petitioners challenged this order before High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 20(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 91, Section 156(3), Section 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 177, 192, 196, 199, 405, 408, 418, 420, 424, 468, 477-A, 34
