1935 (7) TMI 28 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Order for Document Production; Highlights Legal Duty to Comply with Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code.

Ganga Ram Versus Habib Ullah and Ors.

The HC declined to quash the order directing the complainant's mukhtiar to produce a document, emphasizing the legal obligation to comply with court ... - Issues:1. Whether the order of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates calling upon the complainant's mukhtiar to produce a particular document should be quashed or steps be taken against the mukhtiar under the Legal Practitioners Act.Analysis:The case involved a reference by the District Magistrate recommending the quashing of an order by the Bench of Honorary Magistrates directing the complainant's mukhtiar to produce a specific document. The mukhtiar initially denied having the document but later produced it in Court. The issue revolved around whether the mukhtiar could refuse to produce the document based on privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act. The court clarified that Section 126 pertains to disclosures made in the course of legal employment and does not apply to the production of documents. The court highlighted that under Section 162 of the Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document must do so, and the court has the discretion to inspect the document. The mukhtiar's objection to producing the document was deemed invalid as per the law.In a criminal case, the mukhtiar's refusal to produce the document was further analyzed under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal P.C.), which empowers the court to order the production of necessary documents. The court emphasized that even the protection under Section 126 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in criminal cases. The District Magistrate's argument that a written summons was not issued to the mukhtiar was considered a trivial irregularity, as the court has inherent jurisdiction to order the production of documents from a person present in the courtroom.The court also addressed the mukhtiar's conduct, stating that a deliberate attempt to mislead the court would constitute gross professional misconduct. However, considering the circumstances, including the mukhtiar's inexperience and eventual compliance with the court's order to produce the document, the court decided not to take action against the mukhtiar for the delay in producing the document. The court declined to quash the order directing the mukhtiar to produce the document, emphasizing the importance of complying with court directives.