ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Kadiyala Simhachalam – Appellant
Versus
E State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 28470 of 2021
Decided On : 01-11-2022
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 91 - APPLICABILITY TO ACCUSED PERSON - INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "PERSON" - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION - ARTICLE 20(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND GIVING TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, challenged the validity of a notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) directing him to produce a sale agreement allegedly forged by him. The petitioner contended that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not apply to accused persons and that the notice was, therefore, illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not apply to accused persons and that the notice issued to the petitioner was illegal. The court relied on the judgment of a Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, which held that Section 94(1) of the old Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 91 of the present Cr.P.C.) does not apply to accused persons.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 91 Cr.P.C. applies to accused persons. 2. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "person" used in Section 91 Cr.P.C. and held that it does not include accused persons. 2. The court held that Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked against accused persons and that it does not apply to them. 3. The court distinguished between the production of documents and the giving of testimonial evidence, holding that the former does not amount to testimonial compulsion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the notice issued under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to produce the original sale agreement of the year 1998 before the Police in connection with investigation in a case registered in Crime No.434 of 2021 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajahmahendravaram Urban, as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently, prayed to quash the said notice, dtd. 17/10/2021.
2. Factual matrix of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows:-
(a) The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.434 of 2021 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajahmahendravaram Urban. A person by name Gurrala Venkata Krishna Rao lodged a report with the Station House Officer of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajahmahendravaram Urban, stating that Sri Naidu Veera Venkata Satya Pratap is the original owner of the vacant site in an extent of 311.11 sq. yards covered by Plot No.B-2, situate in Prakash Nagar-2, Near AKC College of Rajamahendravaram. It is stated that he purchased the said land in the year 1994 and, thereafter, left for America. He came to Rajamahendravaram about 3 months back and executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant viz., Gurrala Venkata Krishna Rao in respect of the said land. It is stated that the petitioner Sri Kadiyala Simhachalam @ Vijay Kumar of Rajamahendravaram created a fake document as if the said Naidu Veera Venkata Satya Pratap, the original owner of the said site, executed a sale agreement in respect of the said land in favour of the petitioner with the forged signature of the said Naidu Veera Venkata Satya Pratap and on the strength of the said document that he has leased out the said site to a person by name Baji to do chicken business in the said land.
(b) The said report was registered against the petitioner as a case in Crime No.434 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 468, 471 and 506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC and the said case is now under investigation.
(c) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has served the impugned notice under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. on the petitioner, who is the accused in the said crime, to produce the original sale agreement, said to have been executed by Sri Naidu Veera Venkata Satya Pratap in the year 1998 in favour of the petitioner agreeing to sell the said land to the accused for a sum of Rs.12,44,000.00 and also to produce other documents in proof of the right of the accused over the said land. Also to produce copy of the caveat petition along with documents produced by the accused with the said caveat petition in the District Court, Rajamahendravaram.
(d) Assailing the legal validity of the impugned notice issued under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C., the instant Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per the language employed in Sec. 91 Cr.P.C., the word "person" is used stating that if the Court or any officer in charge of the police station considers that the production of any document is necessary for the purpose of investigation or other proceeding, that the Court may issue summons or the police officer may issue a written order to the "person" in whose possession or power such document is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce the said document. He would contend that the word "person" used in the said Sec. does not include an accused and Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. has no application to the accused in a crime or in a criminal case and no such notice under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. can be issued to the accused to produce any document, which is in his possession relating to the said crime or the criminal case. Therefore, he would contend that the impugned notice under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C., which is, admittedly, issued to the accused in Crime No.434 of 2021 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, is, ex facie, illegal. In support of his contention, he mainly relied
State of Gujarat vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi
State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad
A.Srinivas Reddy vs. The State of Telangana
Garika Nagalakshmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not apply to accused persons and cannot be invoked against them.
The order passed on application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was interlocutory in nature. The accused persons had not been summoned to appear before the Court concerned. The investigation in the....
Point of law: Section - 91 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked against the person accused of an offence and the said Section does not apply to the accused persons and that the Court and Police Officer is no....
The accused cannot be compelled to produce incriminatory documents based on his knowledge, as established by the interpretation of Section 94 of Cr.P.C. and relevant case laws.
At the discharge stage, an accused cannot seek production of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, as the right to produce evidence arises only during the trial phase.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accused persons are entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC after the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court has the jurisdiction to direc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.