An accused cannot be compelled to produce documents in their possession for forensic analysis if such documents are to be used for the purpose of incriminating them, as this violates the fundamental constitutional right against self-incrimination protected under Article 20(3).

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 20(3) - Protection against self-incrimination - Right of an accused person not to be compelled to produce evidence which may be used against themselves - Accused cannot be directed to provide documents that form the basis of the prosecution's allegations for the purpose of forensic examination. (Paras 24, 32)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 91 - Summons to produce documents - Scope and application - Such power cannot be exercised to compel an accused to produce incriminating documents, as it would violate the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3). (Paras 27, 33)

(C) Criminal Revision - Interlocutory orders - When an order affects valuable constitutional rights, it cannot be categorized as a purely interlocutory order and is therefore subject to revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
The accused challenged the proceedings and orders of the lower courts that directed the production of original documents for handwriting forensic analysis. The complainant, lacking independent evidence to support allegations of forgery, sought the production of documents currently in the possession of the accused to facilitate expert opinion.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide independent evidence to substantiate the charges. Directing the accused to produce the very documents alleged to be forged, for the purpose of creating incriminating forensic evidence, violates the constitutional immunity against self-incrimination.

Issues: The primary issues were whether a court can compel an accused to produce documents for forensic investigation under statutory powers of discovery, and whether orders directing such production are amenable to revision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory power to summon documents does not extend to compelling an accused to produce materials that would self-incriminate. A balance must be maintained between investigation needs and constitutional rights; since the impugned orders forced the accused to assist in their own prosecution, they were legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Result: The applications were allowed; the impugned orders were set aside, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

1. In CRR 396 of 2025 which is an application under Section 528 BNSS the revisionist has prayed for quashing of CR Case no.23 of 2019 as pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class at Kalimpong, District Kalimpong as well as for quashing of the order dated 13.05.2025 as passed by the said trial court in CR no. 23 of 2019 and the order dated 23.07.2025 as passed in Criminal Revision no. 07 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge at Kalimpong which arose out of the said impugned order dated 13.05.2025 as passed by the learned trial court.

2. In CRR 395 of 2025 which is also an application under Section 528 BNSS the revisionist has prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding in connection with CR case no. 04 of 2020 as pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class, Kalimpong, District Kalimpong with a further prayer for setting aside the order dated 13.05.2025 as passed by the learned trial court in CR no. 04 of 2020 as well as for setting aside the order dated 23.07.2025 as passed in Criminal Revision no. 07 of 2025.

3. For effective adjudication of the instant two applications under Section 528 BNSS the facts leading to filing of those two applications for quashing are required to be dealt with in a nut shell and those are as under:-

a. The revisionist before this Court filed OC suit no. 03 of 2013 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kalimpong claiming his right, title and interest over the suit property of the said suit.

b. In the said suit the revisionist tendered six numbers of rent receipts which has been exhibited as Exhibit 7 (series).

c. According to the opposite party who is the complainant before the trial court, those rent receipts as have been claimed to be executed by one Bangshidhar Agarwal, since deceased are forged and fabricated.

d. On the basis of the said allegation the opposite party filed CR case no. 23 of 2019 before the learned trial court under Section 200 of CrPC for the alleged commission of offence by the revisionist under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 467, 471 IPC read with Sections 191, 192, 463, 464 IPC.

e. After initial examination in CR case no. 23 of 2019 the trial court issued process in the name of the accused who is the revisionist before this Court. On the basis of such process the accused/revisionist appeared before the trial court in CR case no. 23 of 2019 and was enlarged on bail.

f. Based on the self same facts the opposite party filed an application under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdictional civil court for causing an enquiry which was subsequently sent to the trial court and on such application, the trial court initiated another complaint case being CR case no. 04 of 2020 wherein the present revisionist/accused entered appearance and was enlarged on bail.

g. In both the aforementioned two complaint cases the opposite party/ complainant on 08.08.2024 filed an application before the trial court with a prayer for directing the accused/revisionist herein to produce the original rent receipts as have been exhibited as Exhibit 7 (series) in OC suit no. 03 of 2013 for sending those documents to CFSL for comparison with the admitted specimen signatures of late Bangshidhar Agarwal and for opinion of a handwriting expert with regard to the genuineness of the documents in question as well as sample writing and the signatures as appearing on those rent receipts being Exhibit 7 (series) in connection with OC suit no. 50 of 1997.

h. By the two impugned order nos. 52 both dated 13.09.2025 as passed in CR case no. 23 of 2019 as well as in CR case no. 04 of 2020 the said two applications were allowed whereby and whereunder the learned trial court directed the revisionist/accused to produce six rent receipts as have been marked as Exhibit 7 (series) in OC suit no. 03 of 2013.

i. The said two orders dated 13.05.2025 were assailed before the learned Sessions Judge, Kalimpong vide Criminal Revision Case nos. 06 of 2025 and 07 of 2025 which were howe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 5900

An accused cannot be compelled to produce documents in their possession for forensic analysis if such documents are to be used for the purpose of incriminating them, as this violates the fundamental constitutional right against self-incrimination protected under Article 20(3).

Cases Referred (4)