https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165318 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. en-us Mon, 14 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165318 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165318