In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1019 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:April 29, 2010 Daljit Kaur ---Petitioner versus Gurdeep Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.M.L.Saggar, Sr. Advocate, with MrG.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Crl. Misc. No. 17640 of 2010 Heard. There is delay of 34 days in filing the revision petition. The reasons disclosed in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, are sufficient for condoning the delay. Allowed. Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Crl. Revision No. 1019 of 2010(O&M) Heard. This revision petition by Daljit Kaur-petitioner/complainant is directed against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Crl. Revision No. 1019 of 2010(O&M) -2- Class, Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by her under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) was dismissed. The said application was filed by the petitioner for summoning Surjit Kaur, who was summoned as an accused in the complainant itself with a direction to produce the original Will dated 6.12.1992. The complaint is regarding the forging and fabricating that Will itself. Judicial Magistrate First Class while relying upon the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 1251 ( State of Gujrat vs. I. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi and another )dismissed that application. It was held in M.Kalanithi Maran vs. Stte 2004(3) RCR (Crl.) 793 that “the person” used in Section 91 does not include “accused person”. In Hemalatha vs. Suryachandra Reddy and another 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 341, the complainant moved an application under Section 91 of the Code praying for the production of the accounts books and it was shown that those accounts books were not in possession of the accused, the Court came to the conclusion that the complainant was making an attempt for the production of some incriminating material from the custody of the accused. It was held therein that the same was impermissible by virtue of the bar imposed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and that the testimonial compulsions to make a person to be a witness against himself, are prohibited. After going through the order and the judgment itself, I find that there is no illegality in the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Crl. Revision No. 1019 of 2010(O&M) -3- Class. It was specifically held by the Apex Court that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is infringed by an order of the Court acting in exercise of power conferred by Section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989(corresponding to Section 91 of the “Code” ) must depend upon the nature of the document ordered to be produced. If by summoning a person, who is accused before the Court to produce documents or things, he is compelled to be witness against himself, the summons and all proceedings taken thereon by order of the Court will be void. In the present case, the allegation levelled against Surjit Kaur- accused, is that she forged and fabricated the Will and she is being summoned for producing that Will itself. It will amount to be a witness against herself. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused has already produced the photo stat copy of that Will supported by an affidavit before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and as such she can be directed to produce the original Will also by the trial court. That arguments is devoid of merit. Even if such photo stat copy has already been produced in some other case. Surjit Kaur cannot be compelled to become a witness herself by allowing the application, so filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 91 of the Code. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE April 29, 2010 PARAMJIT