Madras High Court
M.Vellaisamy vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.Nos.8519 & 8520 of 2020
1. M.Vellaisamy
2. K.R.Mayalagu ... Petitioners in both
Crl.O.Ps.
Vs
The Sub Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch, Team – I,
Chennai.
(Crime No.641 of 2003) ... Respondent in both
Crl.O.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the orders dated 20.11.2020 passed by the learned
CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.M.P.Nos.3608
& 3610 of 2020 in C.C.No.7005 of 2007, respectively.
For Petitioners
in both petitions : Mr.S.Anil Sandeep
For Respondent
in both petitions : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
The petitions have been filed to set aside the orders dated 20.11.2020
passed by the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai, in C.M.P.Nos.3608 & 3610 of 2020 in C.C.No.7005 of 2007
respectively, thereby ordered to reopen the prosecution and allowed the petition
filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to produce the document from the petitioners/
accused.
2. The petitioners are accused and they are facing charged for the
offences under Sections 406, 420, 384 r/w 120(b) of IPC in C.C.No.7005 of
2007 on the file of the learned CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai. After completion of prosecution witnesses and defence side
witnesses, when the matter was posted for arguments, the prosecution viz., the
respondent herein filed petitions to reopen the prosecution case and to produce
of documents which mentioned in the petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
The respondent filed petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for direction directing
the petitioners to produce the documents on the ground that the petitioners are
in possession of the letter dated 25.10.2005 signed by the defacto complainant,
in which witness signature was obtained subsequently from P.W.3, which has
been marked as Ex.P.7. The undertaking letter obtained from P.W.3 by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 7
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
accused stating the amount dueto his was only Rs.17,96,871/-. For production
of the said documents, the respondent filed petitions under Section 91 of
Crl.P.C., and to reopen the case of prosecution.
3. It is true that the trial Court can very well reopen the case at any
stage before delivery of judgment. However, the accused cannot be directed to
produce any document to prove the case of the prosecution. The prosecution
laid charges as against the accused as such, the prosecution has the duty to
prove his case as against the accused persons.
4. In this regard it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reported in 1980 AIR 185 in the case of V.S.Kuttan
Pillai Vs. Ramakrishnan & Anr, which reads as follows :-
''..........Whatever that may be, it is indisputable that
according to the majority opinion the expression 'person'
in s. 91(1) (new Code) does not take within its sweep a
person accused of an offence which would mean that a
summons issued to an accused person to produce a thing
or document considered necessary or desirable for the
purpose of an investigation, inquiry or trial would imply
compulsion and the document or thing so produced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 7
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
would be compelled testimony and would be violative of
the constitutional immunity against self-incrimination.
................................
In view of the decision in Shyamlal Mohanlal's
case (supra) one must proceed on the basis that a
summons to produce a thing or document as
contemplated by s. 91(1) cannot be issued to a person
accused of an offence calling upon him to produce
document or thing considered necessary or desirable for
the purpose of an investigation, inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Thus, it is clear that the direction under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., cannot be issued
as against the accused calling upon them to produce document. Hence the order
passed by the Court below is illegal and liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, both the Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed
and the orders dated 20.11.2020 passed by the learned CCB & CBCID
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.M.P.Nos.3608 & 3610 of 2020
in C.C.No.7005 of 2007 respectively, are set aside. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22306.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 7
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 7
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
To
1. The CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police
Central Crime Branch, Team – I,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 7
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Crl.O.P.Nos.20389 & 20391 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.Nos.8519 & 8520 of 2020
23.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
