LAWS(JHAR)-2012-3-8

KANTI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On March 28, 2012
KANTI KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This revision application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2010, whereby on an application filed on behalf of the appellant-State under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. praying to summon the respondents (i.e., the accused persons) to submit mark sheet, diploma certificate and registration certificate of A.N.M., the Court directed these petitioners to collect the above mentioned original certificates from the department and to deposit the same in the Court on or before 30.1.2012 for proper adjudication of the case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below directing the petitioners to produce the original documents in the Court amounts to compelling the petitioners to produce evidence against themselves. It has been submitted that even Section 91 of Cr.P.C. does not make the petitioners liable to produce the evidence against them in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which clearly provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be witnesses against himself. Learned counsel also referred to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act in support of his contention that the burden of proof lies on the State-appellant in the present case. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be set aside.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand has submitted that the impugned order was passed in exercise of the power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which entitles the Court to require any person to produce document in his possession before the Court. Learned APP accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.