1. M.P. Sharma v.
Satish Chandra (1954)
Key Issues:
Whether a search to obtain documents for an investigation amounts to compelled self-
incrimination and violates Article 20(3).
Whether a search warrant under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is unconstitutional.
Arguments Presented:
The petitioners argued that:
1. Self-incrimination includes not only oral testimony but also any evidence compelled from
an accused, including documents.
2. Forcible search and seizure of documents is equivalent to compelling the accused to
produce those documents, violating Article 20(3).
Court’s Findings:
The court accepted the first argument, stating that the term "to be a witness" includes both
oral evidence and the production of documents or other forms of communication, such as
gestures (e.g., a dumb witness).
However, the court rejected the second argument and ruled that:
o A search warrant is not unconstitutional, as the power of search and seizure is an
essential function of the State for protecting social security.
o A search and seizure operation is not equivalent to compelling an accused to
produce documents voluntarily.
Impact of the Judgment:
This case expanded the interpretation of self-incrimination to include documents and non-
verbal communication.
However, it upheld the validity of search and seizure as a legitimate investigative tool.
2. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
Key Issue:
Whether obtaining specimen handwriting or a thumb impression of the accused violates
Article 20(3).
Context:
This case was heard by an 11-judge Bench due to controversies raised in the M.P. Sharma case.
Court’s Findings:
The court clarified that Article 20(3) applies only when a person is compelled to provide
evidence that is based on their personal knowledge.
Merely obtaining documents or handwriting specimens is NOT a violation of self-
incrimination if:
o The document does not contain a statement by the accused based on personal
knowledge.
o It is just material evidence, like fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings,
which are not protected under Article 20(3).
Conclusion:
Self-incrimination does not apply to non-testimonial evidence such as fingerprints, voice
samples, and other physical characteristics.
Documents can be obtained from an accused by compulsion only if they do not contain
personal knowledge of the accused.
3. State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi (1962)
Key Issue:
Whether a summons under Section 91 CrPC (now Section 94 BNSS) can be issued to an
accused person to produce documents or things.
Court’s Findings:
The majority ruled that Section 91 CrPC does NOT apply to an accused person.
A summons issued to an accused to produce documents or things is unconstitutional, as it
amounts to compelled testimony under Article 20(3).
Significance:
Section 91 cannot be used to compel an accused to produce evidence against himself.
This ruling ensured that procedural law aligns with constitutional protections under Article
20(3).
4. V.C. Kuttan Pillai v. Ram Krishnan (1979)
Key Issue:
If a summons cannot be issued to an accused under Section 91, can a search warrant under
Section 93(1)(a) CrPC (now Section 96(1)(a) BNSS) be issued?
Court’s Findings:
Since a search warrant under Section 93(1)(a) is issued only when a summons under Section
91 could have been issued, it logically follows that a search warrant also cannot be issued
against an accused person under this provision.
However, the court clarified that other provisions of Section 93 CrPC (now Section 96 BNSS)
remain valid:
o Section 93(1)(b): A search warrant can be issued when the court does not know
who possesses the document or thing.
o Section 93(1)(c): A search warrant can be issued for a general search or inspection in
the interests of justice.
Conclusion:
A search warrant cannot be issued solely against an accused under Section 93(1)(a).
However, other provisions allowing searches remain valid, and any evidence recovered
without compelling the accused remains admissible.
5. M. Kalanithi Maran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003)
Key Issue:
Whether the phrase "any person" under Section 94 BNSS (previously Section 91 CrPC)
includes an accused person.
Court’s Findings:
The Madras High Court ruled that "any person" does NOT include an accused person.
Since an accused cannot be compelled to produce evidence, any summons issued under
Section 94 to an accused is invalid.
Conclusion:
Section 94 cannot be used against an accused to summon documents.
Key Takeaways from the Judicial Interpretations
Case Issue Court’s Ruling
M.P. Sharma Does search and seizure violate Article No, search and seizure is valid and does
(1954) 20(3)? not amount to compelled testimony.
Does obtaining handwriting,
Kathi Kalu No, unless it contains personal knowledge
fingerprints, or documents violate
Oghad (1961) of the accused.
Article 20(3)?
Shyamlal Choksi Can Section 91 (now Section 94 BNSS) No, summoning an accused to produce
(1962) summons be issued to an accused? evidence is unconstitutional.
V.C. Kuttan Pillai Can a search warrant under Section No, but other provisions of Section 93
(1979) 93(1)(a) be issued against an accused? allowing searches remain valid.
M. Kalanithi Does "any person" in Section 94 BNSS No, an accused person cannot be
Maran (2003) include an accused? summoned to produce evidence.
Final Conclusion
Search and seizure powers are valid, but an accused cannot be compelled to produce
evidence against himself.
Summons (Section 94 BNSS) and search warrants (Section 96 BNSS) cannot be issued
against an accused person if they amount to self-incrimination.
Non-testimonial evidence (e.g., fingerprints, handwriting samples) can be collected without
violating Article 20(3).
Documents can be seized, but only if they do not contain personal knowledge of the
accused.
These rulings ensure a balance between investigative powers and constitutional protections,
preventing misuse while allowing for effective law enforcement.
4o
