IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.866 of 2009 Between: M/s Prestec Laboratories Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director Y.S.Prakasa Rao …Petitioner/Accused A n d Y.Kondala Rao and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision case No.866 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 25.05.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.1040 of 2009 in CC No.77 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (P & E), Visakhapatnam, wherein the petition filed by the first respondent herein-complainant under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the petitioner herein- accused for production of copy of memorandum of understanding [MoU] dated 31.03.2004 which was supplied by the complainant, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed complaint against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [for short ‘the Act’] in CC No.77 of 2007. The first respondent herein sought a direction to petitioner-accused for production of copy of the MoU dated 31.03.2004, which was supplied by the complainant himself to the accused. According to the complainant when he sought to produce Photostat copy of MoU, the accused objected for marking the same in the evidence. He therefore, seeks a direction to the accused to produce the copy of MoU supplied to him after his appearance, pleading that the original is not available. The accused contends that the alleged MoU dated 31.03.2004 is a fabricated document and even otherwise, the accused cannot be directed to produce the document. 4. It is to be noted that the complainant is not seeking a direction to produce the document in the custody of the accused so as to incriminate him. The document in respect of which direction is sought is one supplied by the complainant himself to the accused after the appearance of the accused before the Court. The original document is said to have been filed in some other Court and is misplaced and is not available. The complainant is said to have retained a photostat copy of the said document and furnished another copy to the accused after his appearance. When the complainant sought to produce the copy available with him, the accused objected for the same. The complainant therefore sought a direction to the accused to produce copy, which is furnished to him. There cannot be any tenable objection for the accused to produce the said document as in fact it was received by him through the Court after his appearance. Such a direction does not amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 5. In ‘M/s Kuriland (P) Ltd., Thrissur vs P.J. Thomas[1]’, the High Court of Kerala held that ‘mere production of a document without compelling the accused to be a witness as such, will not amount to testimonial compulsion within the meaning of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution’. In the above decision, the High Court of Kerala followed the decision of the Apex Court in ‘M.P.Sharma vs. Sathish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi[2]’, wherein it was held as follows: “It is well established that Cl.(3) of Art.20 is directed against self-incrimination by an accused person. Self- incrimination must mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the persons giving the information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in court which may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge.” 6. No doubt, the accused cannot be compelled to testify against himself. If he is called upon to produce a document, he does not become a witness and mere production of the document will not amount to testimonial compulsion. The Larger Bench of the Apex Court in ‘State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu[3]’ held as follows: “‘To be a witness’ is not equivalent to ‘furnishing evidence’ in its widest significance, that is to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statements, but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused”. 7. In the light of the above decisions, it must be held that mere production of a document without compelling the accused to be a witness as such, does not amount to testimonial compulsion. The impugned order allowing the application filed by the first respondent seeking direction to the petitioner-accused to produce the copy of MoU, which was in fact supplied to him after his appearance in the case, through the Court by the complainant, does not therefore call for any interference. 8. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.08.2009 bss [1] 2009 Crl.L.J.763 [2] AIR 1954 SC 300 [3] AIR 1961 SC 1808