Calcutta High Court rules Section 91 CrPC can’t be used to compel accused to produce self-incriminating material. Major protection reinforced.
Reinforcing constitutional protections, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that courts cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC to compel an accused to submit incriminating documents against themselves.
Calcutta HC Clarifies Scope of Section 91 CrPC: No Compulsion for Accused to Self-Incriminate
In a landmark interpretation of procedural law, the Calcutta High Court has held that an accused person cannot be summoned under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to produce documents or materials that may be used to incriminate them during trial. The verdict strengthens the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, while delivering the judgment, stated:
“It was never the legislative intent while enacting Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the court can summon an accused to produce any incriminating materials which may be used against him in trial.”
This clarification resolves a contentious issue concerning the power of courts to requisition materials from the accused before or during the trial.
What is Section 91 CrPC?
Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts or investigating officers to summon persons—including witnesses and others—to produce any document or thing “necessary or desirable” for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, or trial.
However, the question that arose before the Calcutta High Court was whether this section could be invoked against the accused to force them to bring forward evidence that may directly implicate them.
Case Background
In the matter before the Court, the trial judge had directed the accused to produce specific financial documents under Section 91 CrPC, arguing that they were relevant to the case. The accused challenged the order, arguing that such a direction would violate their fundamental rights, particularly the protection against being compelled to testify against oneself.
The High Court accepted the argument and quashed the lower court’s direction.
Justice Sen observed that compelling an accused to submit material that could potentially be used against them would defeat the core principle of criminal jurisprudence, which places the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Constitutional Protection Reinforced
The judgment reaffirms the scope of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states:
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
Justice Sen referred to multiple precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts to support this interpretation, emphasizing that procedural laws like the CrPC must align with fundamental rights and cannot override them.
The verdict also noted that the use of Section 91 against the accused would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the right to a fair trial.
Expert Reactions
Legal experts hailed the decision as a progressive and necessary clarification. Senior criminal lawyer and constitutional law expert Adv. Aparna Mitra remarked:
“This is a much-needed restatement of the limits of state power. Section 91 is meant to assist investigations, not coerce confessions or compel self-incrimination.”
She added that misuse of procedural tools often leads to abuse of prosecutorial power, which this judgment rightly checks.
Implications for Trial Practice
This ruling is expected to significantly influence how lower courts interpret and apply Section 91 during criminal trials. It establishes that any summons or directions under this provision must exclude the accused when it involves materials that may incriminate them.
It also serves as a guiding precedent for courts across India, reminding judicial officers to remain vigilant about protecting due process and individual liberties.
Judicial Trends and Due Process
The Calcutta High Court’s interpretation aligns with a broader judicial trend seen in recent years, where Indian courts have taken a rights-based approach in criminal law, especially in areas concerning search, seizure, confession, and evidence collection.
The decision comes at a time when concerns about state overreach and procedural abuse are growing, especially in cases involving financial crimes and political figures.
Watch Legal Analysis
For an expert breakdown of this case and its constitutional implications, visit The Legal Observer YouTube Channel
Explore more insightful rulings and commentary on The Legal Observer, including trending updates under National News, Views, and Debates. For legal FAQs, visit our Legal Helpline.
