JUDGMENT 1. No body appearing to oppose the rule, we think it must be made absolute. It appears that the accused while on trial for offences under secs. 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code was directed to produce a certain rent receipt which had been filed In a Civil suit by him or on his behalf and which had been returned. The document was not produced and in consequence the prosecution against the accused for offences under sees. 193 and 471, I.P.C, was abandoned and the accused was discharged, as in the absence of the receipt there were no materials on which to prove the charges against him. Thereafter the case in respect of which the present rule was issued was instituted against the accused under sec. 175 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally omitting to produce the receipt which he was legally bound to produce. The defence of the accused was that he had handed over the receipt to his muktear to produce It in Court but the muktear had suddenly died and the receipt could not be found. This story was disbelieved and the Magistrate convicted the accused of an offence under sec. 175, I. P.C, and sentenced him to two months' simple imprisonment. 2. This rule was subsequently obtained by the present Petitioner, the accused, calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioner under sec. 175, I. P.C, should not be set aside on the ground that the Magistrate erred In law in convicting the Petitioner under sec. 175 and that upon the facts proved, the conviction was not warranted by law. 3. In our opinion the conviction cannot stand. The provisions of sec. 94, Cr. P. C, cannot be taken to apply to the case of an accused person on his trial to whom a notice has been issued to produce an incriminating document. 4. The learned vakil who has appeared to support this rule contends that to hold otherwise would be to go contrary to the principles laid down in the Code of Criminal Precedure in secs. 342 and 343 amongst others. 4. The learned vakil who has appeared to support this rule contends that to hold otherwise would be to go contrary to the principles laid down in the Code of Criminal Precedure in secs. 342 and 343 amongst others. We think the contention is sound and are of opinion that the omission on the part of the accused, the present Petitioner, to produce the document, supposing that there was such as omission, was not an act sufficient to constitute an offence punishable under sec. 175, I.P.C. We therefore make the rule absolute, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the present Petitioner and against him and direct that he be discharged.