1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order made bythe Court below under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Cods, directing theprosecution of the petitioner for offences under sections 175, 157 and 204 ofthe Indian Penal Code. It appears, that the petitioner Bhagabat Prasad was, onthe 26th November 1910, present in the Court premises of the Munsif of Patna.His allegation is that he had gone there to bid for a property which had beenadvertised for sale on that date. He had in his possession a conveyanceexecuted by Munna Lal and others in favour of Raso Singh and several otherswhich he described as his own title-deed. In the early part of the day, he hadshown this document along with others to Babu Kuldip Narain, the pleader in oneof the cases pending before the Munsif. He was asked by the pleader to producethis conveyance for the benefit of his client, to which he replied that hewould not do so till he had been cited as a witness. Later on, the Munsifcalled upon him under rule 7 of Order XVI of the Code of 1908, to produce thedocument. That rule provides as follows: "Any person present in Court maybe required by the Court to give evidence or to produce any document then andthere in his possession or power." When he was taken before the Munsif, hestated that the document was not in his possession at the time, that he hadmade it over to his Muktear Gorakhlal for safe custody, and that the latter hadsent the document home through his clerk Mohabir Prasad. It appeals that hisperson was thereupon searched and the document was not found in his possession.The Munsif concluded that the petitioner had arranged with his Mukhtear and hisservant to keep the document out of the reach of the Court, and at once tooksteps to draw up proceedings under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code.In our opinion, upon the facts stated by the petitioner, which are notcontradicted by any legal evidence, proceedings under section 476 cannot bejustified. It further appears that the petitioner offered to produce thedocument the next day; under such circumstances, there would be still lessjustification for any action against him under section 476. But we may alsopoint out that, before any proceedings could be taken against him, it would benecessary to determine whether the document in question was one which he couldbe compelled to produce. Under section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act, nowitness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce histitle-deeds to any property or any document in virtue of which he holds anyproperty as pledgee or mortgagee or any document the production of which mightincriminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with theperson seeking the production of such deeds or soma person through whom heclaims. Section 131 provides that no one shall be compelled to producedocuments in his possession which any other person would be entitled to refuseto produce if they were in his possession, unless such last mentioned personconsents to their production. Now, the petitioner asserts that the conveyance inquestion was his title-deed. If it was not his title-deed, it was undoubtedlythe title-deed of the purchaser, and, consequently, prima facie, he could notbe compelled to produce the document unless the requirements of sections 130and 131 of the Indian Evidence Act were fulfilled. Under these circumstances,we are of opinion that the order of the learned Munsif cannot be supported. Theresult is, that the Rule is made absolute, and the order of the Court belowdischarged.

.

Bhagabat Prasad Singhvs. King (17.02.1911 - CALHC)