M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--1. Leave was granted by this Court as per order dated 15-3-1980 to consider whether an accused person can be directed to produce documents which would incriminate him in a case pending against him before a Court.
2. This appeal is directed against an interim order dated 12-7-1978 passed by M.I.C, in a complaint case under sections 406/408 PPC and section 282 of the Companies Act. Revision filed against the said order was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 16-5-1979.
3. A complaint under sections 406/408 PPC read with section 282 of the Companies Act was filed by respondent No. 2. Alongwith it she filed two applications under section 94 Cr. P.C seeking an order against the accused/appellant for production of documents and record detailed in the said application. The other application was filed seeking production of the complete file containing returns, resolutions, applications, Memorandum of Articles of Association, etc. From the Office of the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Lahore. The former application mentioned the following documents:
(1) Memorandum & Articles of Association of Rahim Jan & Company (Un-limited) Certificate of incorporation.)
(2) Form E of Rahim Jan & Company (Un-limited) dated 31-8-1969;
(3) Form XII (false declaration made on 15-2-1974).
(4) Special Resolution on Form VIII (showing that the name of Rahim Jan & Company (Un-limited) has been changed to Gardezi & Associates;
(5) Form F dated 31-12-1 973;
(6) Fresh Memorandum & Articles of Association in the name of Gardezi & Associates;
(7) Register of Members;
(8) Annual list of Members Register;
(9) Minute Book of General Meetings and Directors Meetings;
(10) Register of Directors & Managing Agents;
(11) Books of account;
(12) Transfer Deed & Register of Transfer of shares pertaining to both Rahim Jan & Company (Un- limited) , and the changed name 'Gardezi & Associates'.
4. Summon was issued by the trial Court to the appellant under section 94 Cr. P.C. For the production of documents mentioned in the former list to which he raised numerous legal and factual objections seeking protection inter aha under sections 174, 1 75, 340(2)(a) and 342, 343 Cr.P.C, and Article 13 of the Constitution 1973. The main submissions of Raja Muhammad Anwar the learned counsel for the appellant is that one of the fundamental canons of the system of criminal jurisprudence has been that the accused should not be compelled to incriminate himself. The Legislature was aware of the above fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence because in various sections (ibid) of the Criminal Procedure Code it gives effect to it. He further contended that in view of this background the Legislature, if it were intended to make section 94 applicable to an accused person, would have said so in specific words.
5. We think it not necessary to go into the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
He has agreed to produce before the trial Court documents mentioned in the first application at S. Nos. 1 to 6. The Registrar, Joint Stock Companies shall make available before the trial Court the documents asked for from him. The accused appellant has made a statement that rest of the documents are not available with him nor he ever had them in his possession; This being a candid statement the respondent may seek permission of the trial Court to produce secondary evidence permissible under the law. With this observation, this appeal is disposed of.