Compelled document production by an accused is not available under Section 94 during trial under Article 20(3) limits.

Article 20(3) protects an accused from testimonial compulsion and self-incrimination, but that protection does not automatically bar all compulsory document production. The text explains that Section 94 CrPC was not intended to be used to summon an accused already before the court to produce documents during trial, especially where the procedural scheme of Chapters XX to XXIII and the availability of search provisions in Sections 96 and 165 point to other mechanisms. On that basis, an accused under trial could not be compelled under Section 94 to produce account books, and the request was properly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused person can be compelled to produce documents under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether such compulsion is barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 20(3) protects an accused against testimonial compulsion and self-incrimination, but the protection is directed against compelled disclosure based on the accused's personal knowledge. The settled position applied by the Court was that an accused may not be compelled to give personal testimony, but the compulsory production of a document is not necessarily prohibited merely because the document is in the accused's possession. At the same time, the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code was considered controlling: the procedure for trials in Chapters XX to XXIII does not contemplate issuing a summons to an accused person already before the Court to produce a document during trial. The language and structure of Section 94, together with the availability of search provisions in Sections 96 and 165 and the safeguard in Section 343, indicated that Section 94 was not intended to be used to compel an accused under trial to produce documents.

Conclusion: The accused could not be compelled under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code to produce the account books, and the request was rightly rejected.

---