Summons to produce document or other thing
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with summons to produce document or other thing. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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.
Section 91, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 94 Summons to produce document or other thing Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-12.pdf 2004-11-29 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 497/2001. 3-judge Sabharwal/Dharmadhikari/Chatterjee. At charge-framing the accused has no right to produce defence material (Satish Mehra overruled). s.91 cannot be invoked by the accused at that stage: necessity/desirability is judged by stage, and defence is irrelevant until trial. CrPC 227 already filled by Suresh Rajan — do not remap 227; isolate the empty s.91 holding.
On this section: s.91 does not give the accused a right to summon or produce documents at charge-framing; necessity is judged by stage and defence is irrelevant until trial (Padhi 3-judge).
-
State of M. P vs Balram Mihani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provisions for attachment and forfeiture of property (Sections 105-A to 105-L) apply exclusively to offences that have international ramifications and involve reciprocal arrangements with contracting states as defined in Section 105-A(a), and do not apply to local offences committed within India such as gambling and ordinary offences under the Indian Penal Code. The proper interpretation requires reading the general language of Section 105-C(1) in the contextual background of the chapter's purpose as demonstrated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the legislative history, and the specific references throughout the chapter to contracting states and international criminal cooperation mechanisms.
On this section: Contrasted with Chapter VII-A to show that general search, seizure, and property disposal provisions exist for local offences
-
Budhiyarin Bai vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While offences under the NDPS Act are serious and warrant stringent punishment, courts must consider mitigating factors under Section 32B of the NDPS Act, including the personal circumstances of the accused such as age, illiteracy, rural background, lack of criminal history, and awareness of legal consequences, before imposing sentences higher than the minimum prescribed. The mere residence of an accused in a house where drugs are found, without clear evidence of active involvement in trafficking, may not justify the same level of punishment as those directly involved in the illegal trade, particularly when co-accused suppliers are acquitted.
On this section: Notice issued to appellant to produce documents related to possession of cannabis. Appellant failed to produce any document.
-
The Muthoot Finance LTD vs The State of Ap
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Police investigating officers must follow the prescribed procedure under Sections 91 and 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when seeking to recover property in possession of a third party. Police cannot arbitrarily enter business premises, threaten employees, or interfere with business operations without following due process of law. If a person refuses to produce property in response to a written order under Section 91 CrPC, the investigating officer must obtain a search warrant from the court under Section 93 CrPC before conducting a search.
On this section: Provides authority to police officer in-charge of police station to issue a written order requiring production of documents or things necessary for investigation. Court held that this is the first step police must follow before attempting to recover property.
-
Yogesh Singh vs Dinesh Singha Alias Dinesh Kumar Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the liability of an accused towards a complainant must be determined solely on the basis of evidence relating to transactions and dealings between the two parties. Income tax returns and account books of a third-party witness, even if they establish the witness's financial capacity to lend money, are not relevant to determine the liability between the accused and the complainant. Furthermore, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon documents must be made at the appropriate time during the examination of the witness, and a belated application filed after the witness has already testified may be rejected as untimely and potentially dilatory.
On this section: Power to summon documents and other things; the petitioner's application to summon income tax returns and account books was made under this section
-
Salem Dolerites Limited vs Vysya Bank Leasing Company Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused disputes the quantum of liability in a cheque-related trial, the court should facilitate the production of relevant account statements under Section 91 CrPC to ensure a fair defense.
On this section: Pertains to the summoning of documents/records necessary for trial.
-
Salem Dolerites Limited vs Vysya Bank Leasing Company Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application under Section 91 of CrPC for production of statement of accounts should not be rejected when the accused disputes the quantum of liability in a cheque bounce case, as it is essential for the defense.
On this section: Summoning of documents; Court held records must be summoned if relevant to the defense.
-
Jagdish Chandra vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Hard discs on which intercepted telephone conversations have been recorded are electronic records and therefore documents within the meaning of Section 173(5)(a) read with Section 207(v) CrPC. The prosecution is obliged to furnish to the accused copies of only such documents that it proposes to rely upon as indicated in the charge sheet or of those already sent to the court during investigation. At the pre-charge stage, the trial court cannot direct the prosecution to furnish copies of documents other than those which it proposes to rely upon. However, where the charge sheet indicates that the prosecution is relying upon certain documents, the accused must be given access to those documents. In the instant case, the scope of the APFSL examination was to certify that the hard discs were properly functioning and that the calls copied on to the CDs were true copies of the original recordings in the hard discs. Only to this extent can it be said that the hard discs are being relied upon by the prosecution. The certification in terms of Section 65B(4) EA does not obviate the statutory requirement under Section 207(v) of providing to the accused access to the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversation as a relied upon document. Therefore, the accused should be permitted to listen to the original recordings of the relevant intercepted telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution by having the said original recordings played directly from the hard discs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, their counsel and the learned Judge.
On this section: Court's power to summon documents or witnesses
-
Sree Gowri Ganesha Souharda Credit Co-operativ Society Ltd. vs The Superintendnt of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Investigating Officer cannot direct freezing of bank accounts by invoking Sections 91 or 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The correct provision is Section 102 CrPC. Compliance with Section 102(3) CrPC, which mandates that the police officer must forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, is mandatory and not merely procedural. Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement vitiates the freezing of the bank account. Therefore, a bank freeze order that does not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 102 CrPC is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
On this section: Court held that Section 91 does not confer power to freeze bank accounts; this was a procedural error by the investigating officer
-
Dr. Padamsinha B. Patil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the right of an accused to examine defence witnesses is fundamental and ordinarily cannot be curtailed, the court has discretion under Section 233(3) of the CrPC to refuse such applications if made for vexation, delay, or defeating ends of justice. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially. The court cannot reject defence witnesses merely on grounds of delay when the prosecution has taken years to examine its witnesses. Critically, if the prosecution does not examine witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the CrPC, and the defence alleges these witnesses were deliberately withheld, the accused cannot be deprived of the opportunity to examine them in defence, provided such witnesses have potential to throw light on the occurrence. The relevancy of evidence must be determined by whether it bears on the facts in issue or relevant facts under Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, not by whether it relates to the character or background of the deceased.
On this section: Relates to production of documents; court noted that accused's entitlement to seek production under this section ordinarily does not arise until defence stage.
-
Sumathi Ravichandran vs The Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Sanction files containing confidential communications between government departments and authorities are privileged documents under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. An accused person does not have the right to peruse such privileged sanction files, even for purposes of mounting an effective defense. However, the trial court may examine the sanction file to satisfy itself that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the facts placed before it. This approach balances the accused's right to fair trial with the state's legitimate interest in protecting confidential government communications relating to affairs of state.
On this section: Power of court to summon documents; petitioner filed application under this section in trial court seeking production of sanction file
-
Md. Ibrahim Hussain vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a police investigation has been completed, witnesses have been examined, and a final report has been filed citing lack of evidence, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel further investigation. The appropriate remedy for a complainant dissatisfied with the investigation and final report is to file a protest application before the concerned court, not to seek judicial intervention through a writ petition.
On this section: Power to examine witnesses and seize documents - cited by petitioner as basis for mandamus petition
-
S.senu vs The Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a deposited amount requires recovery and the police have initiated proceedings under Section 92 CrPC by writing to the District Magistrate, the High Court should direct the subordinate judicial authority to pass appropriate orders for recovery within a specified timeframe, rather than directing the police to take independent action. The proper procedure for recovery of deposited amounts is through the District Magistrate under Section 92 CrPC.
On this section: Mentioned as an alternative procedure for bringing the seized money to the court.
-
Salem Dolerites Limited vs Vysya Bank Leasing Company Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused disputes liability in a financial case and seeks production of account statements to substantiate their defense, such documents should be summoned to facilitate a proper trial and cross-examination.
On this section: Summoning of documents or other things necessary for trial/defense.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… We direct the respondent to ensure that the file in question is preserved. It is obvious that at the stage of leading the defence evidence, the Trial Court will direct production of the file by issuing necessary 3 directions under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER …
-
… 'the IPC') against the accused, including the appellant herein on the allegation that 'YSSS', in connivance with the other accused defaulted payment to the company to the tune of Rs.9 Crores. Pursuant to the lodgement of the FIR, the appellant received notices dated nil, on 06.08.2020 and 09.09.2020, issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter, 'the Cr.P.C.') calling upon him to produce certain documents. Though, the appellant produced documents in his possession before the Investigating Officer, he got further notices insisting for production of more documents which, according to him, are not in his …
-
… There is no apprehension that the Applicant would run away from the hands of law or would threaten the witnesses. Hence, Regular Bail is sought. 14. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of State wherein it has been stated that during the course of investigations, a Notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") and Section 41A of CrPC were served to all the alleged accused persons including the Director of Sudarshan Cold Store, Gwalior, M.P. but they neither gave any Reply nor joined the investigations. Thereafter, the  is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.91 does not give the accused a right to summon or produce documents at charge-framing; necessity is judged by stage and defence is irrelevant until trial (Padhi 3-judge). Another 13 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 91, section 91 CRPC, section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 14 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (29 Nov 2004).
What should I read with Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Indian Evidence Act 123 (Evidence as to affairs of State), Indian Evidence Act 124 (Official communications), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 94 (Summons to produce document or other thing), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 91, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.