9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (7) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the direction to file a regular complaint. Upon this the complaint in this case was filed. The complainant and his witnesses had apparently denied that the witnesses also had signed the previous application. After the complainant and one witness had been examined and the second witness was being cross-examined, the counsel for the accused filed an application before the Court that the application in the possession of the complainant's mukhtiar should be allowed to be inspected by the accused and that it should be caused to be filed, as there was an apprehension that it might be destroyed. The complainant's mukhtiar stated that the papers with him were receipts in connexion with this case, and then he was put the question by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be kept in a sealed cover. 4. The first question for consideration is whether the application was a privileged document which the complainant's mukhtiar could refuse to produce. Protection was claimed under Section 126, Evidence Act; but the provisions of that section obviously do not apply to this case. Under that section a legal practitioner is not permitted, without his client's express consent, (1) to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such Barrister, or (2) to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or (3) to disclose any advice given by him to his client in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility. This paragraph certainly lays down that the Court has a discretion in the matter, if it deems fit, to inspect such a document, even though there is an objection to its production or to its admissibility, provided that it does not refer to matters of State. Except in the case of matters of State, the Court may inspect the document, though there is an objection as to its production. Indeed, under the last paragraph, the Court may even get the document translated by a translator, who may be enjoined to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence. It would, therefore, follow that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the conclusion that, inasmuch as Section 94, Criminal P.C., empowers the Court to issue a summons, and as no written summons was issued in the present case, there was no authority to call upon the Mukhtiar to produce the document. It seems to us that the omission to comply with the formality of getting a summons issued, when the person was actually present in the Court room, was a trivial irregularity. Obviously the Court has inherent jurisdiction to call upon a person present in the Court room to produce a document which is in his possession at the time. When he is not present in the Court room, a summons has to be issued; but even that is not absolutely necessary, for if the Court is of the opinion that the document may not be produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
