9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an accused person can be compelled to produce documents during a trial under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. 2. Interpretation and applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution concerning self-incrimination. 3. Applicability of Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code to an accused person under trial. 4. Alternative legal provisions for obtaining documents from an accused person. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compulsion of an Accused to Produce Documents: The primary issue in the case was whether an accused person could be compelled to produce certain account books during a trial under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. The trial Magistrate had rejected the Police Prosecutor's application to compel the accused to produce these documents. The learned Sessions Judge, however, recommended that the accused could be compelled to produce the documents if they did not contain any personal statements of the accused, suggesting that Article 20(3) of the Constitution did not apply in this context. 2. Interpretation and Applicability of Article 20(3): Article 20(3) of the Constitution states, "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." The interpretation of this clause has been the subject of various Supreme Court decisions. The judgment references the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, where the Supreme Court concluded that: - An accused person is not compelled to be a witness against himself merely by making a statement in police custody. - Voluntary statements made to police officers do not constitute compulsion. - "To be a witness" includes not only oral or written statements but also the production of documents or other materials relevant to determining guilt or innocence. - The prohibition in Article 20(3) extends to compelled testimony previously obtained from the accused. The Supreme Court case of M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra further clarified that the guarantee against testimonial compulsion is not confined to oral testimony but includes the production of documents. However, the protection is against self-incrimination based on personal knowledge, not the mechanical process of producing documents. 3. Applicability of Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code: Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a court or police officer to issue a summons or written order to any person to produce a document or thing necessary for investigation or trial. The question was whether this section applies to an accused person under trial. The judgment analyzed the provisions of Chapters XX to XXIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, which govern the trial procedures for summons cases, warrant cases, summary trials, and trials before High Courts and Sessions Courts. The court concluded that Section 94 does not apply to an accused person under trial. The rationale was that the trial procedures outlined in these chapters do not provide for issuing a summons to an accused person to produce documents once the trial has begun. The court emphasized that the proper sections to be utilized for obtaining documents from an accused are Sections 96 and 165, which deal with search warrants and searches by police officers. 4. Alternative Legal Provisions: The judgment highlighted that while Section 94 does not apply to an accused person under trial, Sections 96 and 165 provide alternative means for obtaining documents. Section 96 allows a court to issue a search warrant if it believes that a person will not produce the document voluntarily. Section 165 permits a police officer to search any place within the limits of the police station if the requirements of the section are satisfied. The court also referenced various case laws, including S. Kondareddi v. Emperor and Bisser Misser v. Emperor, which discussed the applicability of Section 94 to accused persons. It was concluded that the general principle of English law, which prohibits issuing a summons to an accused to produce documents, should be followed. The court also noted that compelling an accused to produce documents would be contrary to Section 343 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits using any influence to induce an accused to disclose or withhold information. Conclusion: The court upheld the trial Magistrate's decision to reject the Police Prosecutor's application to compel the accused to produce documents. It concluded that Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to an accused person under trial and that alternative provisions, such as Sections 96 and 165, should be utilized to obtain documents. The court also emphasized that compelling an accused to produce documents would violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Therefore, the reference by the learned Sessions Judge was rejected.
|
