PARMESHWARI DEVI versus STATE AND ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 23-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI, A.C. GUPTA, P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
lGO 
PARMESHW ARI DEVI 
v. 
STATE AND ANR. 
November 23, 1976 ' 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, A C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.j 
Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1868), Ss. 94. 96 and 98 and Evfrience 
Act (1 of 1872)-Person summoned to produce documents, when may be exa-
mined and cross-examined. 
Code of Criminal 
Procedure (2 ti! 1974) S. 397(3) 
Interlocutory order, 
what is. 
Section 94(1),_ Cr. P. C., 1898, which deals with summons to produce any 
document, authonses the court to issue a summons to the person in whose 
possession or power such document is believed to be, requiring him to attend 
and produce it, or to produce it at the time and place strvted in the summons. 
According to sub-s.(2) a person required merely to produce a document shall 
be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document 
to be produced instead of attending personally to produce it. 
In the present case, during a criminal trial, the complainant filed an a.ppli-
cation under s. 94, for a direction to the accused to produce a document. . The 
accused stated that the document was not in their possession. The complainant 
then made another a·pplication under the section praying that the appellant may 
be directed to produce the document. 
The appellant Was not a party to the 
case and no reason whatsoever was given by the complainant in the application 
why the document was likely to be in appellant's possession or power. 
The 
Maigistrate then passed an order summoning the appellant with the document. 
The appellant, in her reply, professed ignorance of the document and stated 
that as she was a "pardanashin" lady she may not be sumoned to court. The 
Magistrate thereupon passed another order directing her to attend the 
Court 
so tha·t if she made a 'statement on oath' that she was not in possession of 
the document, the Court may get a chance to put her a few questions for 
satisfying itself regarding the whereabouts of the document. 
The appellant's 
revision petitions against the order to the District Court and High Court were 
dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code providing 1
that the person who appears in Court, in pursuance of ai summons under s. 
-
94( 1) becomes a witness and can be 
examined and 
cross-examined even 
though he has not been cited as a witness. 
Section 13~, Evidence Act, also 
provides that if a person produces the document fo_r which a summons has 
been issued to him, he does not thereby become a witness a·nd that he cannot 
be cross-examined nntil he is called as a witness. 
AU that the Magistrate could 
do was to issue search warrants under s. 96( 1) or s. 98 if the requirements of 
those sections were satisfied. The Court could not therefore record the appel-
lant's statement on oath on her inability to produce the document, or put her a 
few questions ror satisfying itself regarding its whereabouts. [163C-EJ 
(2) The order, which was thus not acco~ding to !aw adver~ely affected the 
appellant who was not a party to. the enquuy or tnr,1. . Obv10usly she could 
have no opportunity to challenge 1t at the end of the tnal, and such belat<:d 
challenge would also be purposeless. 
'.fJ:i.erefore, th7 ordei; col\14 not be said 
to be an interlocutory order and the rev1s1onal courts erred ·Ill ra1smg the bar of 
s. 397 (3 ), Cr. P. C. 1974. [164C-DJ 
Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat [1968] 2 S.C.R. 685, 
followed. 
PARMESHWARI DEVI v. STATE (Shinghal, !.) 
161 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 411 
-Of 1976. 
Appeal by Special Leave f~om. the Jud~ent ~n~ Order ?~ted the 
22nd April, 1975 of the Delhi High Court m Cnmmal RevlS!on No. 
258.of 1974. 
Frank Anthony and D. Gobrudhan for the Appellant. 
R. N. Sachthey-(Not present) for Respondent No. 1. 
G. S. Vohra, S. K. Gambhir and K. L. Taneja for Respondent 
No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL, J. This appeal of Smt. Panneshwari Devi, by special 
leave, arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated April 
22, 1975 dismissing her application for revision of the order of the 
Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi dated August 29, 1974, confirm-
ing the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi dated August 8, 
1974. The facts giving rise to the appeal are quite simple and may_ 
be shortly stated. 
A complaint was filed by respondent N. L. Gupta on behalf of 
Smt. Patashi Devi for the commission
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.