Jada Sravan Kumar, vs The Officer On Special Duty Osd
2021 Latest Caselaw 3059 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                      MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No. 4630 of 2021

                                  PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                Office
        DATE                                 ORDER
No                                                                                 Note

2.    16.08.2021   CMR, J

                                         I.A.No.1 of 2021

                         Dispensed with for the present.


                                                                      ________
                                                                       CMR, J
                                    Crl.P.No.4630 of 2021


                         Learned Standing Counsel cum Special Public
                   Prosecutor for CID has taken notice for respondent

and requests time to filing counter affidavit.

Post the matter on 23.08.2021.

________ CMR, J

I.A.No.2 of 2021

The petitioner herein assails the legal validity of notice given under Section 91 Cr.P.C summoning a document from his possession.

The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.8 of 2020 of CBCID, Guntur. A case under Sections 380, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC and under Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was registered against the petitioner along with other accused. The said crime is now under investigation.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer issued the impugned notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C to the petitioner, who is A-1, directing him to produce a document, which is said to have been exhibited by him during the debate in TV5 on 06.04.2020 at 09.00 P.M., stating that the same is required for the purpose of investigation.

Now, the petitioner questions the legal validity of the said notice issued to him under Section 91 Cr.P.C primarily on the ground that no such notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C can be given to the accused and the expression 'person' used in Section 91 Cr.P.C does not include accused person. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Madras High Court rendered in the case of M.Kalanithi Maran Vs State wherein while relying on the judgment of State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi reported in 1965 MLJ (Crl) 417, it is held that the said decision is direct on the point dealing with Section 91 Cr.P.C with which the subject matter is concerned and held by the Apex Court in no uncertain terms, while answering the point that the term 'the person' employed in Section 91 Cr.P.C does not include the 'accused person' true to its construction and therefore, the respondent has no authority or reason to summon the petitioner, who is an accused in the case in which summons have been sent to cause production of material mentioned therein. Therefore, the Madras High Court in the aforesaid judgment quashed the said notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C issued to the accused to cause production of the documents mentioned therein.

So, in view of the above law laid down in the above judgment, as it is stated that notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C cannot be issued to an accused person to cause production of a document, the petitioner could make out a strong prima facie case warranting interference of this Court to examine in the main Criminal Petition whether the impugned notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C is legally sustainable or not and whether the said notice is liable to be quashed or not.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C, till the next date of hearing.

________ CMR, J

AKN