Investigating officers can summon documents/objects under Section 94 of the BNSS; failure to disclose details isn't a valid defense.

Exhibits P4 and P5 notices issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS ') are under challenge in this writ petition. Exts.P2 and P3 crimes were registered by the Maradu Police Station alleging offence against the accused under Section 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The allegation in both cases is that the accused committed theft of gold ornaments from the houses of the respective defacto complainants. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the stolen gold ornaments were pledged by the accused with the petitioner, M/s.Manappuram Finance Ltd. Therefore, the investigating officer, who is the respondent No.2, issued notices under of to the petitioner to produce the gold ornaments pledged by the accused with them. It is challenging the said notices, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. I have heard Sri.K.S.Sreeraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Anesh Paul, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exts.P4 and P5 do not disclose the details of the gold ornaments which are, allegedly stolen properties. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that they are prepared to keep the gold ornaments without disposing of the same till the disposal of the case.

4. Section 94 of the BNSS authorizes any officer in charge of a police station to summon any person to produce document or other thing involved in a crime. The investigating officer, during investigation, found that the gold ornaments stolen by the accused were pledged before the petitioner firm. Therefore, the investigating officer has every right to issue summons to the petitioner to produce those gold ornaments before him. It is true that in Exts.P4 and P5, details of the gold ornaments have not been mentioned. However, in the detailed counter statement filed by the respondent No.2, all the details of the gold ornaments with descriptions, relating to both crimes have been clearly mentioned. On production of the gold ornaments, if the investigating officer confirms that they are involved in the crimes and produce the same before the Court, the remedy open to the petitioner is to move an application for interim custody. Hence, this writ petition fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The petitioner shall produce the gold ornaments involved in both crimes, as detailed in the counter statement filed by the respondent No.2, to the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.