A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Honourable Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal and Honourable Shri Radhakishan Agrawal observed that Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution works as a protection towards the accused against compulsory testimonial, meaning that Section 91 of the CrPC does not apply.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners were subjected to an FIR against them by the respondent under multiple sections under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were asked to produce certain documents under Section 91 of the CrPC which would have been self-incriminatory in nature.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that producing the documents would lead to self-incrimination and be violative of their right to remain silent which is a constitutional and legal right guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It was also stated that the notices issued demanding the production of certain documents under Section 91 CrPC need to be overturned since they cannot be made to testify in their own defence.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that the petitioners must abide by the terms and conditions under which they were granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, and while they are enjoying this privilege, they cannot refuse to deliver the documents that they would otherwise be expected to.
Observations of the Court:
The Court recognized at the initial stage of the judgment that according to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, no man is bound to accuse himself and that this extended to having the protection to not act as a witness against himself or provide self-incriminatory evidence. The Court additionally noted that the protection would be available to a person against whom a formal charge has been lodged in the first place, as well as if such an accusation pertains to the commission of an offence that ordinarily may result in prosecution. The Court then referred to multiple cases where the Supreme Court held that Section 91 of the CrPC does not apply to an accused person and they could not be forced to produce any document or evidence which would be self-incriminatory.
Decision of the Court:
The writ petition was allowed partly by the High Court to the extent that the notices directing the petitioners to produce the document were quashed and the petitioners were to appear before the Station House Office for the recording of their statements.
Case Title: Ku. Urja Jain vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Coram: Honourable Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal; Honourable Shri Radhakishan Agrawal
Case No.: WP(Cr.) No.483 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri; Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sudeep Verma; Mr. Avinash Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
