Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
MOHANDAS T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4998 2023
Quash - Criminal Procedure - CrPC Section 91 - The court interpreted Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, establishing that it does not permit the issuance of a summons to an accused to produce documents, aligning with constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a theft case, sought to quash notices under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which required them to produce documents for investigation purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court ruled that the notices compelling the petitioners to produce documents were invalid, referencing Supreme Court precedents that define 'person' in Section 91 as excluding those accused of offenses, thus protecting against self-incrimination.
Issues: Whether Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows issuing a notice to an accused to produce documents for investigation purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a summons under Section 91 cannot be issued to an accused person, as it would contravene the right against self-incrimination established in previous Supreme Court rulings.
Final Decision: The notices requiring document production were quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TH FRIDAY, THE 7 DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 4922 OF 2023 CRIME NO.350 OF 2023 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
RAJESH T.K AGED 44 YEARS S/O. RAJAN T. K, KOTHALATH HOUSE, CHELAVOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673571 BY ADVS.
T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR T.O.DEEPA C.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THAMARASSERY., PIN - 673573 SRI. M P PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4998/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TH FRIDAY, THE 7 DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 4998 OF 2023 CRIME NO.350 OF 2023 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:
MOHANDAS T AGED 53 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN T, THANNIYOTTUMAL HOUSE, RAROTH,THAMARASSERY P.O, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673573 BY ADVS.
HALVI K.S.
A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673573 SRI. M P PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4922/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.M.C 4922 of 2023 is the 4th accused, and the petitioner in Crl. M.C 4998 of 2023 is the 5th accused in Crime No.350 of 2023 of the Thamarassery Police Station. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the notice issued by the Station House Officer, Thamarassery Police Station under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which the petitioners have been called upon to produce certain documents for the purpose of investigation into Crime No.350/23 registered under Section 379 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation is that sometime in the year 2017, the accused in the aforesaid crime, with the intention to commit theft of gold from Saudi Arabia, illegally transported gold to India and thereby obtained unlawful gain.
3. The petitioners state that both the petitioners had approached the Court of Session and were granted pre-arrest bail by the Addl Sessions Judge-II, Kozhikode. While so, a notice, purportedly under Section 91 of the Code was issued by the Investigating officer calling upon the petitioners to produce documents relating to the assets of the petitioners, including properties, bank accounts, and business records on the premise that the production of the same is required for the purpose of investigation of the crime. The petitioners contend that neither the Code nor any other provision enacted by the legislature confers any power on the investigating officer to issue directions to cause for the production of the documents mentioned in the said order. It is further contended that the words 'the person' in Section 91 of the Code will not include an accused, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be compelled to produce documents or information pursuant to a written order.
4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have considered the submissions advanced.
5. In these cases, the challenge is against the notice issued under Section 91 of the Code to the accused. The Apex Court inV.S Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan and Others (1980) 1 SCC 264 , after referring to the law laid down inShyamlal Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1965 SC 1251),M.P Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra , District Magistrate, Delhi and Others ( AIR 1954 SC 300 ),Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Assistant Inspector of Labour , Karaikudi ( AIR 1955 Mad 716 ), State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others ( 1961 SC 1808 ) have concluded that i
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
