Disclaimer: Copyright infringement not intended.

Context

• The Supreme Court recently stated that courts cannot use Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to compel the production of documents or things based on an accused's application during the framing of charges.

Section 91 CrPC:

• Purpose: Enables courts or police officers to summon individuals for the production of documents or things essential for investigations, inquiries, trials, or legal proceedings.
• Modes of Issuance: Courts may issue a summons, while officers may issue a written order for the production of documents or things.
• Alternative Compliance: Individuals can send the requested items instead of appearing in person to comply with the summons or order.
• Exclusions: Does not cover items listed under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act or those in the custody of postal or telegraph authorities.
• Procedure for Personal Attendance: Requires summon under Sections 61-69 or warrants under Sections 70-81 if personal attendance is necessary.
• Essential Elements:

• 'Document or Other Thing': Refers to physical material, excluding abstract items like specimen signatures.
• Desirability: Documents must be necessary or desirable for the proceedings.
• Identity of Possessor: The possessor's name must be known for the application to be entertained.

• Exceptions: Does not include an accused person in trial, protecting against self-incrimination.
• Significance:

• Safeguards evidence from being misplaced, destroyed, or tampered with.
• Enables thorough review and evaluation of submitted items.
• Helps find crucial information for the case.
• Safeguards the rights of all parties involved.
• Acts as a check on the authority of law enforcement and courts.

• Privacy Concerns: Post-Puttaswamy, privacy considerations may impact the use of Section 91, particularly regarding unilaterally issued orders by police.
• Landmark Judgments:

• Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries: Extended powers to include documents controlled by individuals on behalf of target individuals.
• CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy: Recognized the Investigating Officer's authority to direct document production without High Court authorization.
• Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI: Acknowledged the provision's authority but stressed its inherent restrictions based on the circumstances.

Conclusion: Section 91 of the CrPC is a powerful provision that needs to balance the need for evidence with individuals' rights, especially concerning self-incrimination and privacy.

Download PDF