Narrow construction of criminal production powers: an accused cannot be compelled to produce documents under section 94.

Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was construed narrowly and held not to authorise a court or police officer to compel an accused person to produce documents or things in his possession. The majority read the general words in light of the criminal procedure scheme, the related search and production provisions, and article 20(3) of the Constitution, and found that "attend and produce" was not intended to apply to an accused absent express words. A dissenting opinion took the broader view that the provision could apply to an accused subject to the constitutional limitation against testimonial compulsion, but the majority view prevailed and the refusal to compel production was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 authorises a court or police officer to summon an accused person to produce a document or thing in his possession.

Analysis: The majority held that although the words of section 94 are general, the provision must be read in the setting of the criminal procedure scheme and the background of article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The use of the expression "attend and produce" was treated as unsuitable for an accused person, and a broad construction was found likely to create practical hardship and conflict with the limited constitutional protection against testimonial compulsion. The Court also held that the related provisions governing searches and production support a narrower reading and that the Legislature did not intend section 94 to extend to an accused person in the absence of express words.

Conclusion: Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not apply to an accused person, and an accused cannot be compelled under that section to produce documents or things in his possession.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the orders below refusing to compel production were sustained.

Concurring Opinion: A dissenting view took the opposite position, holding that section 94(1) is wide enough to include an accused person and that the provision can operate subject to the constitutional limitation under article 20(3). On that view, the appeals ought to have been allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: General words in a criminal procedural power will be narrowly construed where an expanded reading would subject an accused person to compelled production inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the constitutional protection against testimonial compulsion.

---