Court Can’t Summon Accused U/S.91 Of CrPC To Produce Incriminating Material Which May Be Used Against Him In Trial: Calcutta High Court

The applications before the Jalpaiguri Bench of the Calcutta High Court were filed under Section 528 BNSS by the revisionist seeking quashing of the case and proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class at Kalimpong.

The Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held, “It thus appears to this Court that from the series of reported decision as cited from the Bar it would reveal that it was never the legislative intent while enacting Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that court can summon an accused to produce any incriminating materials which may be used against him in trial.”

Advocate Arjun Chowdhury represented the Petitioner, while APP Nilay Chakraborty represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The revisionist had filed a suit claiming his right, title and interest over the suit property and he tendered six rent receipts. According to the opposite party, who is the complainant before the trial court, those rent receipts, claimed to be executed by one Bangshidhar Agarwal, since deceased, were forged and fabricated. On the basis of the said allegation, the opposite party filed a case before the trial court for the alleged commission of offence by the revisionist under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 467, 471 of the IPC, read with Sections 191, 192, 463, 464 of the IPC. The trial court issued a process in the name of the accused revisionist. The accused/revisionist appeared before the trial court and was enlarged on bail.

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 wherein the revisionist/accused entered appearance and was enlarged on bail. By the impugned orders, the Trial Court allowed the applications filed by the complainant and directed the revisionist/accused to produce six rent receipts.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that before the trial court, no documents had been placed containing either the specimen or the admitted signatures and/or handwriting of the deceased Banghsidhar Agarwal.

The Bench explained that Article 20 (3) mandates that an accused of an offence shall not be compelled to be witness against himself. Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates for production of any document or other thing by a person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be in the event a court issues a summons to produce it.

On a perusal of the factual aspects of the case, the Bench noted that the alleged fabricated/forged receipts were in possession of the revisionist/accused.

“At this juncture if I again look to the provisions of Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India it appears to this Court that though Section 91 empowers a Court to issue summons against a person for production of a document in whose possession such document or thing is believed to be however, such power cannot be exercised overlooking the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India especially when it is the positive assertion of the complainant that rent receipts are fake and were never executed by the father of the complainant and therefore in the event the same is proved to be fake that would become incriminating against the accused who is the revisionist before this Court”, the Bench said.

“This Court is conscious that issuance of summons to produce a document against a person asking him to produce a document does not ipso facto make the said person as a witness however, it would be highly unjust if the word ‘person’ used in Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is presumed to include an accused”, it added.

Setting aside the impugned orders, the Bench mentioned that sufficient materials were placed to exhibit that the complainant before the trial court had only relied upon the alleged fake rent receipts, which were in possession of the present accused and apart from those documents, the complainants were not in possession of any further documents to substantiate the allegations in the said two complaint cases. Thus, allowing the applications, the Bench quashed all the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class, Kalimpong.

Cause Title: Ram Kishan Mittal v. The State of West Bengal (Case No.: CRR 396 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Arjun Chowdhury, Masood Sultan, Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury, Sunayana Parveen, Riya Agarwal, Mantu Mandal, Bappaditya Roy

Respondent: APP Nilay Chakraborty, APP Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Advocates Saikat Chatterjee,Sourav Ganguly, Ajay Singhal, Heena Yasmin Shaikh, Chiroshhre De

Click here to read/download Order