Skip to content


Surey Kondareddi and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.493
AppellantSurey Kondareddi and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredAhmed Mahomed Jackariah and Co. v. Ahmed Mahomed
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 94 - production of document or other thing incriminating accused--issue of summons to accused for--whether permissible. - .....in clause (3) of the section. the question was considered at length in the case reported in ahmed mahomed jackariah and co. v. ahmed mahomed 15 c.p 109 and it was held that it was clearly the intention of the legislature to make section 94 applicable to an accused person, notwithstanding that this involved a departure from the general principle of the english law. a similar view was apparently taken in the case reported in in the matter of the complaint of h. h. the nizam of hyderabad v. a. m. jacob 19 c.p 52 a contrary view was taken in the case reported in ishwar chandra ghoshal v. emperor 12 c.w.n. 1016 : 8 c.l.j. 320 : 8 cri. l.j. 224 in which the learned judges referred to sections 342 and 343 criminal procedure code, which were not referred to in the two calcutta cases noted.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ralph Benson, J.

1. The question raised in this petition is, whether it is competent to a Magistrate under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a summons to an accused person to produce a document or other thing, the production of which might tend to incriminate him. The words of the section are general. No exception is made in favour of an accused person, though several exceptions are specified in Clause (3) of the section. The question was considered at length in the case reported in Ahmed Mahomed Jackariah and Co. v. Ahmed Mahomed 15 C.P 109 and it was held that it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to make Section 94 applicable to an accused person, notwithstanding that this involved a departure from the general principle of the English law. A similar view was apparently taken in the case reported in In the matter of the complaint of H. H. The Nizam of Hyderabad v. A. M. Jacob 19 C.P 52 A contrary view was taken in the case reported in Ishwar Chandra Ghoshal v. Emperor 12 C.W.N. 1016 : 8 C.L.J. 320 : 8 Cri. L.J. 224 in which the learned Judges referred to Sections 342 and 343 Criminal Procedure Code, which were not referred to in the two Calcutta cases noted above. In Ishwar Chandra Ghoshal v. Emperor 12 C.W.N. 1016 : 8 C.L.J. 320 : 8 Cri. L.J. 224 however, no one appeared to support the Magistrate's action and the learned Judges did not refer to cases of Mahomed Jackariah and Co. v. Ahmed Mahomed 15 C.K 109 and In the matter of complaint of H. H. The Nizam of Hyderabad v. A. M. Jacob 19 C.K 52. The Magistrate always has the power to issue a search warrant to obtain the production of a document or other thing in the possession of the accused. The issue of a summons is a milder means of attaining the same end. I am of opinion that the ruling in Ahmed Mahomed Jackariah and Co. v. Ahmed Mahomed 15 C.P 109 should be followed. I, therefore, dismiss the petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //