[S.91 CrPC] Accused Cannot Be Summoned To Produce Incriminating Evidence Against Himself: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under section 91 of the CrPC to provide incriminating material against himself, which would be used against him in trial.

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."

The present pleas were filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners. Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist/ accused pointed out the copies of the petitions as filed by the complainant before the trial court, as have been annexed with the instant two revisional applications. Attention of the Court was drawn to Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure vis-à-vis Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

It was submitted that on perusal of the petitions as filed before the trial court by the complainant/ opposite party herein it would reveal that the complainant is not in possession of any documents to substantiate the allegations as made in the said two complaint cases and therefore the complainant cannot be permitted to proceed with the said two complaint cases.

Drawing attention to Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India it was submitted that the trial court while passing the said two orders dated 13.05.2025, failed to visualize the principle that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

It was further submitted that though Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court to issue summons to the persons in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it at the time and place stated in the summons and order however, the accused cannot be considered to the 'said person' within the meaning of Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure since the same is contrary to the spirit of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2/complainant submitted that from the impugned orders, it would reveal that the learned trial court on the basis of the complaints made before him, practically wanted to secure the documents which are very much needed for adjudication of the subject matter of dispute in the said two complaint cases.

It was further argued that while passing the said two impugned orders dated 13.05.2025 the trial court merely directed the accused/revisionist herein to produce documents in his possession which may throw some light on the controversy for effective adjudication of the lis before him and thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the impugned orders as passed by the trial court are violative of the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Upon going through the arguments of the parties, the court noted that the counsel for the respondent could not satisfy this Court as to which are the admitted specimen documents that have been placed before the trial court for sending the same along with the questioned documents to CFSL for an FSL report.

The court further discussed Article 20 of the Constitution and held that under Section 91 of the CrPC, the trial court could not use its summoning powers to force an accused to give incriminating evidence against himself.

Thus, it allowed the plea.

Case: Ram Kishan Mittal Vs. The State of West Bengal.

Case No: CRR 395 of 2025

Click here to read order