Court affirms constitutional safeguards under Article 20(3) against compelled production of evidence by accused, following principles from landmark judgments.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, dismissing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a Special Judge's order. The CBI had sought to compel retired judge I M Quddusi to provide details of mobile numbers, bank accounts, and employee information through a notice under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The case originated from an FIR registered by the CBI against Quddusi and others, including a sitting judge and an educational trust, for alleged criminal conspiracy and corruption. The CBI, during its investigation, issued a notice to Quddusi under Section 91 Cr.P.C., requesting specific information. Quddusi challenged this notice, arguing it violated his fundamental right against self-incrimination.
The Special Judge for CBI Cases had previously sided with Quddusi, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, which clarified that Section 91 does not apply to accused persons. The CBI's petition argued that the information sought was non-incriminatory and necessary for a fair investigation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her ruling, emphasized the distinction between compelling existing documents and compelling an accused to create evidence based on personal knowledge. The court reiterated that forcing an accused to produce testimonial evidence violates Article 20(3), as established in previous judgments such as M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kathi Kalu Oghad.
The court further clarified that Section 91 Cr.P.C. is designed to secure existing documents or things, not to compel the creation of new evidence. The ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards, cautioning against using Section 91 as a means to bypass the protection against self-incrimination. The court also pointed out alternative legal mechanisms available to investigating agencies, such as obtaining evidence from independent sources through other statutory provisions.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the CBI's petition, affirming the Special Judge's decision and upholding the constitutional rights of the accused. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual rights while balancing the needs of effective law enforcement.
Bottom Line:
Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to compel an accused to create evidence or provide information that does not pre-exist as a document or thing, as it would violate the constitutional protection under Article 20(3) against self-incrimination.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 91, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 20(3), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 165, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 27, Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891
