Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter VII: Processes to Compel the Production of Things · A.–Summons to produce
Section 91: Summons to produce document or other thing
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—
(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers‘ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or
(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 91
-
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Whether the inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 u/s.15, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby justifying…
-
M Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-accused no.1 u/s.120B, IPC and ss.7, 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by reversing the finding of acquittal of the Trial Court.
-
Visakhapatnam v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Others
Whether the two letters could have been looked at or relied upon by the Special Court for exercising its jurisdiction u/s.239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-
Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the subject FIR against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whether a cognizable offence against them is prima facie made out from a reading of the subject complaint.
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
-
Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Issue arose as regards invocation of extraordinary power u/Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings.
-
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining to the FIR registered…
-
Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office
(a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the…
-
State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida
The High Court rejected the applications filed by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act,…
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Varsha Garg v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Manoj & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) and Anr. v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr.
- P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung and Ors.
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors.
- Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
- Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and Ors.
- Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others
- The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M/S. Vedanta Limited (Formerly Known As Sesa Sterlite Limited) & Ors.
- Pankaj Jain v. Union of India & Anr.
- Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr v. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known As Nithya Bhaktananda and Anr.
- M/S. v. L. S. Finance Ltd. v. S. P. Gupta and Anr.
- Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh
- Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Anr. v. C.B.I. and Anr.
- Lokesh Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan
- In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors.
- Reference Under Article 317 (1) No.2 of 2008 in Re: Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, Hpsc and Ors. v. --
- C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka