There are certain laws laid down in the respect of summoning a person to produce a document or for the attendance of the witnesses. Order 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under section – 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 139 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the fact that whether it is necessary for a person to be present before the court when that person is directed to produce any document?
Basically, Order 16 deals with the summoning and attendance of witnesses. Rule 6 of Order 16 is concerns with the summons to produce a document before the court of law. Any person may be summoned to produce a document, deprived of being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be supposed to have complied with the summons if he gets the document produced instead of his attending personally to produce the document. While Rule 15 of Order 16 deals with the duty of persons summoned to give evidence or produce a document.
The person who is summoned to give evidence must appear before the court for that purpose. But if the person is summoned to produce any document then, in that case, he may either attend to produce it or cause it to be produced, at such time and place. Therefore, a witness who is asked to produce a document need not attend the court. It will be sufficient if he ensures the production of the document before the court by any other means or through someone else. Rule 15 of Order 16 clearly mentioned that if the court asked a person to be present before the court on the said time and date specified by the court for any purpose as mentioned in Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 then that person has to be present at the said time.
Section 91 of Cr.P.C. – Summon to Produce Document or Other Thing. If in case, any Court or any officer in charge of any police station contemplates that if any documents and any other things need to be present or required for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or in other proceedings before the Court or any office, then, in that case, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer may issue a written order, to the person, who is likely to be the owner of the said document or in whose possession, control or power such document or thing is believed to be as per the Court or the officer in charge, to produce the document before the Court or office. This section also mentioned that it is not necessary for the person to be present before the Court.
If the person produces the required document at the required time and places mentioned in the summoning of the written order by any other source then in that case also it will consider as the person who has complied with the requisition. This section, Sec – 91 does not apply on – 1.) Section – 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; 2.) The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891; 3.) To apply any parcel, a letter, any document, postcard, or telegram in the custody of the postal or any telegraph authority. Moreover, this section also not applicable to any accused person because of a violation of Article – 23(3). Article 23(3) deals with the provisions that a person shall not be forced to be a witness against himself.
Provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section – 123 deals with provisions related to that a person shall not be permitted to produce any unpublished documents or records of the government as evidence during the proceeding before the Court.
Section 162 deals with a person who can only produce any document or any records of government before the Court when it is authorized by the Head of the department of that related document authority permitted to do so. The higher authority to decide this is the Court.
Section 124 deal with no public officer shall compel to disclose any information or any conversation done within the department. As per the recent verdict given the Bombay High Court, the court has the authority to decide whether the information or the conversation done within the office will be disclosed before the court or not.
Section 132, it deals with the provisions that a person who is compelled to produce any document before the court shall not be cross-examined by any party to the suit.
CASE: STATE OF GUJARAT V. SHYAMLAL
The entire procedure of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 is based on the principle of justice and fairness. As per the fundamental principles of legal jurisprudence, a person who is accused of any offence should be given an equal chance to be heard and to defend himself and no incrimination will be made. It is in consonance with this theory only that there are provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) related to the issue of process, provisions in section 161 (3), and provision in section 162 of Cr. P. C. (1973) that any statement recorded during the course of the investigation, shall not be signed by the person making the statement, has been specified.
Moreover, the protection against self-incrimination has been provided as a special fundamental right, under Part III of the Constitution of India. Article – 20(3) deals with the provisions that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It was held in this case that the provisions of sec – 91 are not applicable to the accused of the trail because it violet the provisions of Article 23(3) as it incriminates that person.
CASE: CHEKHA KRISHNA PRASAD V. KOTHA APPA RAO
In this case, the respondent files a suit against the petitioner for an injunction claiming title over the immovable property. The petitioner also claiming title over the same property based on a registered sale deed. But the respondent challenges the validity of the said sale deed in favor of the petitioner on the ground that it is invalid under the law.
Based on the application field by the respondents under Rule 6 of Order 16 of C.P.C., 1908, the Trial Court allowed the petition to summon admission registered. The Trial Court found that the petitioner is a minor based on the E. V. Reddy College, Kodad on the execution of the sale deed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court has no authority to summon a document from the custody of a third party, especially from any public office. It must be recalled that both the parties to the suit are at liberty to present oral and documentary evidence, whatsoever according to their optimal to substantiate their case. The question arises on the relevancy or validity of the documents after they are offered in evidence, which shall be considered by the Court in accordance with the law.
Andhra High Court held that there is not any illegality or any jurisdictional error seen in the order passed by the Trial Court. Thus, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission age due to the lack of merits.
This Article is Authored by Nikita Kumari, Fourth-Year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Galgotias University.
