https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299178 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. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:40:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299178 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299178