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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 176

LAKSHMANA RAO
The Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Menoki of Calicut – Respondent


ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The application was for issue of summons to the lawyer for the 6th accused under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce certain letters written by the first accused to the sixth accused alleged to be in his possession and prima facie those letters are not privileged communications by the sixth accused to his lawyer under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further as held in Ganga Ram v. Habib-Ullah I.L.R.(1935) 58 All. 364, Clause 3 of Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not exempt documents protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the production of such documents is incumbent under Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act notwithstanding any objection which there may be to the production or admissibility. The validity of the objection has to be decided by the Court after production and the dismissal of the application for issue of summons for production of the letters is unsustainable. The order of dismissal is therefore set aside and the Magistrate is directed to issue the summons under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for production of the letters and deal with the documents according to la

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