##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

WRIT PETITION No.40792 OF 2025

DATED: 31^ST DECEMBER, 2025

Between

Panyala Raja Venkat Reddy …Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana

rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Home Department and four others …Respondents

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the

action of the respondent No.3 in directing him to furnish the

information vide impugned Notice dated 18.12.2025 issued

under Section 94/106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) as illegal.

02. Heard Sri Malla Reddy Gadipally, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri M. Srinivas, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home.

2

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent No.3 is not having power to call for any

incriminating material from the petitioner-accused under Section

94/106 of BNSS (corresponding to Sections 91/160 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’). In support of his

contention, he relied upon the principle laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal

Mohanlal Choksi, AIR 1965 SC 1251 and prayed to quash the impugned notice.

04. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

admitted that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in Crime

No.285 of 2025 on the file of the Station House Officer,

Siddipet-II Town Police Station.

05. In view of the above said submissions, it is relevant

to extract Section 94 of the BNSS, which is as under:

“Summons to produce document or other thing. (1)

Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a

police station considers that the production of any

document, electronic communication, including

communication devices, which is likely to contain

digital evidence or other thing is necessary or

desirable for the purposes of any investigation,

inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita by

or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue

a summons or such officer may, by a written order,

3

either in physical form or in electronic form, require

the person in whose possession or power such

document or thing is believed to be, to attend and

produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place

stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to

produce a document, or other thing shall be deemed

to have complied with the requisition if he causes

such document or thing to be produced instead of

attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

(a) to affect sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the Bankers’ Books

Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891); or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, or other document or

any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal

authority.”

06. The Hon’ble Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme

Court in Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi (cited supra)

categorically held that if by summoning a person who is

accused before the Court to produce documents or things he is

compelled to be a witness against himself, the summons and all

proceedings taken thereon by order of the Court will be void.

This protection must undoubtedly be made effective, but within

the sphere delimited by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Kathi-Kalu Oghad’s Case. It needs however to be

affirmed that the protection against what is called testimonial

compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is

against proceedings in Court; it does not apply to the orders

4

which may be made by a Police Officer in the course of

investigation. The Court cannot therefore be called upon to

consider whether the action of a Police Officer calling upon a

person charged with the commission of an offence to produce a

document or thing in his possession infringes the guarantee

under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

07. The combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Hemalatha v. P. Suryachandra Reddy, (2007) 1 ALD (Cri) 658 (AP), Girika Nagalakshmi

v. State of Andhra Prad