Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 1131
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
M.Kalanithi Maran - Appellant
Versus
State, by The Inspector of Police - Respondents
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21724 OF 2003 AND CRL.M.P.No.6234 OF 2003
Decided On : 28 July 2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'the person' referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not include 'an accused person', as ruled by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Section 91 - Criminal Procedure Code - 120-B, 417, 153 IPC - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code and its applicability to an accused person. Key legal provisions were highlighted, including the Supreme Court's ruling that 'the person' referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not include 'an accused person', influencing the court's decision to quash the notice sent to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Managing Director of Sun TV Limited, was accused of telecasting distorted news leading to violence. The respondent issued a written order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to produce certain documents. The petitioner filed a criminal original petition seeking to quash the order, arguing that the respondent exceeded jurisdiction and that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not apply to an accused person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the term 'the person' in Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not include an accused person, based on the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the notice sent to the petitioner.
Issues: The key issue was the interpretation of Section 91 Cr.P.C. and its applicability to an accused person.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling that 'the person' referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not include 'an accused person', leading to the decision to quash the notice sent to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal original petition, quashed the notice sent to the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., and closed the case.
The above criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the written order of the respondent issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C., dated 4.7.2003.
2. Petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Sun TV Limited, is the accused in the above case registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w.417 and 153 IPC. The charge against him is that when Mr.M.Karunanidhi,the former Chief Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu, was arrested in the wee hours of 30.6.2001, from the morning of 30.6.2001, the SUN TV was continuously telecasting news as if Mr.Karunanidhi was attacked and manhandled by the Police at the instance of the State Government and there was a deliberate human rights violation in his arrest and that the SUN TV edited the entire recorded events, inserted dubbing voices and misrepresented the entire facts with the deliberate intention of creating hatred in the mind of the public towards the State Police and the Government of Tamil Nadu headed by the Chief Minister Selvi J.Jayalalitha; that though the misconduct on the part of two Union Ministers was also recorded by the SUN TV it did not telecast the attack on the police officials by them and the extreme patience shown by the police officials who arrested the former Chief Minister and because of such distorted news telecasted by the SUN TV, violence took place in many parts of the State in which hundreds of transport buses suffered damage and the fear psychosis was also created in the mind of the general public.
3. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Metro Wing, Chennai has sent an order purported to be under Section 91 Cr.P.C. thereby directing the petitioner to produce the following documents on or before 14.7.2003 before the said Officer at 10.00 am.:
1.The Video Cassettes (Master Copy) taken on 29.6.2001 by the SUN TV crew members at the time of effecting the arrest of Thiru M.Karunanidhi at his residence by CBCID.
2.Furnish the names, designation and address of the crew members of SUN TV, who were all involved in taking the videograph and telecasting the above event.
4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come forward to file the above criminal original petition seeking the relief sought for on ground that in issuing the impugned order, the respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to cause production of the documents mentioned in the said order; that a reading of Section 91 Cr.P.C. would clearly reveal that the words used therein are 'the person' and not an 'accused person' and therefore the respondent cannot invoke his powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C. against an accused person; that the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the 'person' referred to in Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not include 'an accused person' and therefore he cannot be compelled to produce documents or information pursuant to a written order by a police Officer under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
5. During arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides adhering to the facts pleaded in the above Criminal O.P., would also cite four judgments in consummation of the meaning of the terms 'the person' as employed in Section 91 Cr.P.C. which does not include 'an accused person'. The first judgment cited is one reported in STATE OF GUJARAT v. SHYAMLAL MOHANLAL CHOKSI (1965 M.L.J. (Crl.) 417) wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court by majority held that "section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code (old Code and presently Section 91) on its true construction does not apply to an accused person. Consequently, in exercise of powers under section 94(1) Cr.P.C., a Court has no authority to summon a person accused of an offence before it to produce a document or a thing in his possession.... It would be still more odd for a Police Officer to issue a written order to an accused p
