SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(Guj) 106

V.B.RAJU
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
SHYAMLAL MOHANLAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: H.M.CHOKSHI

V. B. RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Nadiad recommending that the order passed by the trial Court on an application of the Police Prosecutor of Umreth for issuing a summons to an accused person to produce certain documents be set aside. The Police Prosecutor Umreth had requested the trial Magistrate to direct an accused person who was accused in a case under the Bombay Money Lenders Act to produce certain account books which he was alleged to be in possession of and which were likely to be used by the prosecution to prove its case. The learned trial Magistrate rejected this application. But the learned Sessions Judge before whom the State went in revision was of the view that the accused can be compelled to produce account books in his possession if they do not contain any personal statement of the accused. He was of the view that the provisions contained in clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution did not apply. Therefore he made a reference to the High Court to issue suitable directions to the learned Magistrate.

( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate rejected the application given by the Police Prosecutor to direct the accused to produce the account








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top