The Court clarified the scope and interpretation of Section 162 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that a witness must produce a document in their possession or power, notwithstanding any objection, and the Court has the authority to decide on the validity of such objections. The word 'admissibility' in Section 162 includes all objections relating to production, relevancy, and admissibility, including claims of privilege.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 91, 162 - EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 162 - WITNESS SUMMONS - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - PERSONAL LIBERTY - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - REVIEW OF ORDER - MAINTAINABILITY - PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY OF DOCUMENTS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The case involves two criminal applications filed by the Chairman and Ex-Chairman of a Co-operative Housing Society challenging a witness summons issued by the Magistrate under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, directing them to produce certain documents in a criminal complaint filed by one P.H. Nanavati against one C.P. Wagh, the Honorary General Secretary of the Society.
Finding of the Court:

1. The Court held that the petitioners, as Chairmen of the Society, cannot claim personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution to refuse to produce documents in their possession or power when summoned by a Court. 2. Section 162 of the Evidence Act mandates a witness to produce a document in their possession or power, notwithstanding any objection to its production or admissibility. The Court has the authority to decide on the validity of such objections. 3. The Court clarified that the word 'admissibility' in Section 162 includes all objections relating to production, relevancy, and admissibility, including claims of privilege. 4. The Court dismissed the review application filed by the Ex-Chairman, K.M. Shah, as he was not a party to the revision application in which the order for production of documents was passed. 5. The Court also dismissed the application filed by the Chairman, J.D. Mehta, as he should have complied with the witness summons and raised objections before the Magistrate instead of rushing to the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, as Chairmen of the Society, can claim personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution to refuse to produce documents in their possession or power when summoned by a Court. 2. The scope and interpretation of Section 162 of the Evidence Act, particularly the meaning of 'admissibility' and the types of objections that can be raised under it. 3. The maintainability of a review application by a third party who was not a party to the original proceedings. 4. The proper course of action for a witness who is summoned to produce documents and has objections to their production or admissibility.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners' claim of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is not applicable in this case, as the documents sought to be produced are not their personal properties and their production is necessary for the administration of justice. 2. The Court interpreted Section 162 of the Evidence Act to mean that a witness must produce a document in their possession or power, notwithstanding any objection, and the Court has the authority to decide on the validity of such objections. The word 'admissibility' in Section 162 includes all objections relating to production, relevancy, and admissibility, including claims of privilege. 3. The Court held that a review application is not maintainable by a third party who was not a party to the original proceedings, as the right to file a review application is limited to parties to the litigation. 4. The Court emphasized that a witness who is summoned to produce documents should comply with the summons and raise any objections to the production or admissibility of the documents before the Court, instead of rushing to the High Court with an application.
Final Decision: Both criminal applications were dismissed. The rule issued in both applications was discharged.

JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---These two applications arise out of a criminal complaint filed by one P.H. Nanavati in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. Criminal Application No. 71 of 1983 is filed by the Chairman of the Navyug Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, while Criminal Application No. 72 of 1983 is filed by one K.M. Shah, the Ex- Chairman of the Society.

2. For relevant facts leading to these criminal application require to be stated in order to appreciate the point involved in them. During the year 1979-80 P.H. Nanavati, opponent No. 1 in Criminal Application No. 71 of 1983 was the Chairman of the said Society, and one C.P. Wagh, opponent No. 2 in both criminal application was the Honorary General Secretary of the said Society. On November 24, 1980 Nanavati filed a complaint against Wagh under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, which is numbered as Case No. 140 / S of 1980. The case of Nanavati against Wagh is that on November 1, 1980 a meeting of the managing committee of the said Society was held and in the said meeting in the presence of the members of the managing committee and others Wagh assaulted him.

3. On January 8, 1982 complainant Nanavati filed an application in the lower Court praying for a witness summons to be issued against original accused Wagh to produce 15 documents. That summons was served on Wagh, and he contended in the Court that he was not in possession of the said documents and, therefore, unable to produce the same. The contention of Wagh was accepted by the Court. It is necessary at this stage to mention that one K.M. Shah was the Chairman of the said society at the material time, who had field Criminal Application No. 72 of 1983 to review the order passed by this Court. Nanavati made another application on February 5, 1982 for a witness summons to be issued against K.M. Shah, who was then the Chairman of the said Society, calling upon him to produce the said documents. On the application field by Nanavati, the learned Magistrate on February 8, 1982 was pleased to issue a witness summons against Shri Shah. In pursuance of the summons of the Court, Shah appeared through an Advocate in the Court and objected for the production of the said documents. The objection was overruled by the learned Magistrate, directing the witness to produce the documents, and on production he was allowed to raise objections, if any, to the production of the said documents. Accordingly Shah objected to the production of the documents and also relevancy thereof in connection with the case pending before the learned Magistrate. Wagh, opponent No. 2- accused, supported the contention of Shah and opposed the production of the said documents. The learned Magistrate by his order dated July 7, 1982 held that the documents called for from the said Society have no relevance to the facts of the case, and, therefore, directed to return the documents to the said Society.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Nanavati preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 364 of 1982 in this Court. In the said criminal revision application only original accused C.P. Wagh and the State of Maharashtra were made parties. K.M. Shah was not added as a party to the said revision application. From the record it appears that a notice before admission was issued to the parties on July 17, 1982 After hearing the parties to the said revision application, S.J. Deshpande, J., passed an order dated October 28, 1982. The order runs as under :

"Heard the parties. The documents consist of letters which are being relied on by the complainant. These are allowed to be produced subject to all legal objections as to admissibility and relevancy in law. Accused will have a right to object at a proper time. Order of the learned Magistrate dated 7-7-1982 is hereby set aside."

In pursuance of the aforesa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis