Legal privilege does not bar document production; court may require disclosure even without a written summons in court.

Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act protects confidential communications with a legal adviser, not a document merely because it is in the adviser's possession; a mukhtiar therefore cannot refuse production on that ground. The court may require production under Section 162, leaving objections to be decided by the court after inspection, except in matters of State. The absence of a written summons did not invalidate a direction to produce a document where the person was already before the court, as the power under the criminal procedure law was treated as sufficient. False denial of possession may amount to professional misconduct, but no disciplinary action was taken on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a legal practitioner or mukhtiar could refuse to produce a document in his possession on the ground of privilege under the Evidence Act; (ii) whether the absence of a written summons vitiated the order directing production of the document in a criminal case; (iii) whether the mukhtiar's conduct warranted action for professional misconduct.

Issue (i): Whether a legal practitioner or mukhtiar could refuse to produce a document in his possession on the ground of privilege under the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The protection under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 extends to confidential communications made to a legal adviser, the contents or condition of documents acquainted with in the course of professional employment, and advice given to the client. It does not create a privilege against production of a document merely because it is in the possession of the legal adviser. The production provisions in Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 require a person summoned to produce a document to bring it to Court, leaving objections to be decided by the Court. The Court may inspect the document, except where matters of State are involved.

Conclusion: The mukhtiar could not lawfully refuse production on the plea of privilege; the objection under Section 126 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a written summons vitiated the order directing production of the document in a criminal case.

Analysis: Under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court may require production of a document where it considers production necessary. The provision also shows that the power is not confined to the formal issuance of a summons where the person is already present before the Court. The omission to issue a written summons in such circumstances was treated as a minor irregularity, since the Court had inherent power to direct production of a document then in the possession of a person present in Court. Order 16, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was relied upon to reinforce the general power to require production of documents.

Conclusion: The order to produce the document was valid despite the absence of a written summons.

Issue (iii): Whether the mukhtiar's conduct warranted action for professional misconduct.

Analysis: A false denial of possession of the document, if clearly established, would amount to serious professional misconduct because it would be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. On the facts, however, the timing of the question and the subsequent production of the document made it uncertain whether the specific document was actually in the mukhtiar's hands when the question was put. The conduct in delaying production was disapproved, but the legal issue was not free from difficulty and the practitioner was described as inexperienced. In these circumstances, no disciplinary action was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: No action was to be taken against the mukhtiar for professional misconduct.

Final Conclusion: The order requiring production of the document was upheld, while disciplinary action against the mukhtiar was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A legal adviser cannot resist production of a document in his possession by invoking Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Court may require its production under the evidence and criminal procedure provisions even where a formal summons has not been issued to a person already present before it.

---