KEBAL CHAND JAIN Vs. DINANATH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is fating a trial as an accused under Section 420, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bargarh. On 23 -7 -1973, the complainant opposite party filed a petition in the trial Court praying to direct the accused Petitioner for production of the documents mentioned therein. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties, the learned S.D.M. directed the Petitioner to produce the documents. This order for production of the documents was confirmed by the very same Court by an order dated 4 -8 -1973. It is against the order of the learned. S.D.M. directing the Petitioner to produce certain documents as desired by the opposite patty the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE application filed by the opposite party in the trial Court for production of documents by the Petitioner is one under Section 94, Code of Criminal Procedure. The language of the section is very wide and one may think by reading the section that it includes an accused person, but judicial pronouncements are otherwise. That apart, Article 20(3) of the Constitution clearly lays down that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be witness against him. In the decision reported in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1808, this provision of the Constitution has been held to mean that an accused person cannot be compelled to disclose documents which are incriminatory and based on his knowledge. Section 94(1), Code of Criminal Procedure again came up for consideration in a later decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1251. The following three passages from the judgment of this reported decision may be quoted below to elucidate the point in controversy in the case. In paragraph 29 of the judgment their Lordships have observed as follows: