PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MSMENOKI OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application was for issue of summons to the lawyer for the 6 accused under Section 94 of the Criminal P. C. to produce certain letters written by the first accused to the sixth accused alleged to be in his possession and prima facie those letters are not privileged communications by the sixth accused to his lawyer under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further as held in Ganga Ram V/s. Habib-Ullah (1935) I.L.R. 58 All. 364, Clause 3 of Section 94 of the Criminal P. C. does not exempt documents protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the production of such documents is incumbent under Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act notwithstanding any objection which there may be to the production or admissibility. THE validity of the objection has to be decided by the Court after production and the dismissal of the application for issue of summons for production of the letters is unsustainable. THE order of dismissal is therefore set aside and the Magistrate is directed to issue the summons under Section 94 of the Criminal P. C. for production of the letters and deal with the documents according to law when produced.