Scope of Section 91 CrPC and Protection Against Self-Incrimination

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court in CBI v. I M Quddusi (2025) upheld the protection of accused persons against compelled self-incrimination, ruling that Section 91 CrPC cannot be used to extract information from an accused that would require them to impart personal knowledge. 

What was the Background of CBI v. I M Quddusi (2026) Case? 

• The CBI registered FIR No. RC 217/2019/A/0009 dated December 4, 2019, against the respondent (a retired Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court), Justice Shri Narayan Shukla (Judge of Allahabad High Court), M/s. Prasad Education Trust, and others. 
• The accused were charged under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 12, and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• The allegations involved a criminal conspiracy to obtain favorable orders for Prasad Educational Trust, whose college was debarred by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, allegedly involving illegal gratification. 
• On February 11, 2020, the CBI issued a Notice under Section 91 CrPC to the respondent seeking: (i) details of mobile numbers used during 2017, (ii) details of all bank accounts with statements for May-October 2017, and (iii) details of drivers/servants employed during May-October 2017. 
• The respondent challenged the notice through Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2020 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, arguing it violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 
• On April 1, 2021, the Special Judge allowed the respondent's application and set aside the Section 91 notice, relying on State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi (1965). 
• The CBI filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the Special Judge's order, arguing the information sought was non-incriminating and necessary for investigation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court examined the constitutional protection under Article 20(3), referring to MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), which held that "to be a witness" includes oral as well as documentary evidence and extends beyond courtroom testimony. 
• The Court distinguished between testimonial evidence (imparting personal knowledge) and material evidence (fingerprints, specimen writings) based on State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961). 
• The Court emphasized that Section 91 CrPC presupposes the existence of a specific, tangible document or thing already in possession, not the creation of new records. 
• The Court observed that the CBI's notice did not seek production of pre-existing documents but demanded the accused provide information by applying their mind and memory to create a new record. 
• The Court noted that the CrPC provides distinct mechanisms: Section 91 for securing real evidence (existing documents/things) and Section 161 for securing oral evidence through interrogation. 
• The Court held that treating a demand for details as a demand for a document would stretch Section 91 beyond its permissible limits. 
• The Court affirmed that while Kathi Kalu Oghad laid down broad contours of Article 20(3), Shyamlal Choksi specifically interpreted Section 91 CrPC and concluded the legislature did not intend to include accused persons within its ambit. 
• The Court noted that Shyamlal Choksi (1964) was decided after Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), and the Constitution Bench was aware of the earlier principles but carved out a specific statutory exception regarding Section 91. 
• The Court emphasized that compelling the accused to identify and list mobile numbers, bank accounts, and employees would require applying mind, searching memory, and compiling information based on personal knowledge, which constitutes testimonial compulsion. 
• The Court ruled that Section 91 cannot be used as a shortcut to compel the accused to assist in building the case against himself when the agency can collect evidence from independent sources.

What is Section 91 of CrPC?  

About:  

• This Section deals with the summons to produce documents or other things whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 94 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It states that -  

(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 or the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 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. 

Case Law:  

In the case of Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2018), the Supreme Court observed that the accused cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91 CrPC at the stage of framing of charge.