JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This revision application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010, whereby on an application filed on behalf of the appellant-State under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. praying to summon the respondents (i.e., the accused persons) to submit mark sheet, diploma certificate and registration certificate of A.N.M., the Court directed these petitioners to collect the above mentioned original certificates from the department and to deposit the same in the Court on or before 30.1.2012 for proper adjudication of the case. It appears that the petitioners were accused in Narayanpur P.S. Case No.41 of 1997 corresponding to G.R. No.206 of 1997 for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC on the allegation that the petitioners had obtained appointment on the basis of forged certificates. The petitioners were put to trial in the said case and the Trial Court acquitted the accused petitioners of the charges by the Judgment dated 13.4.2010 in G.R. Case No.206 of 1997/ T.R. Case No.528 of 2010, as contained in Annexure 2 to this application. It appears that against the Judgment of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jamtara, wherein during the pendency of the appeal, some witnesses were examined by the prosecution. It transpired that the original certificates were handed over by the petitioners to the Medical Officer at the time of their joining. PW – 7 Mrs. Munmun Mishra, Registrar, Bihar Nurses Registration Council, who appear to have been examined at the appellate stage, had stated that the original documents were not before her. Subsequently, the petition was filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant-State praying the Court for directing the respondents petitioners to produce the original documents. The said application has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara directing the petitioners to collect the original documents from the concerned department and to deposit the same in the Court. This order has been challenged by the petitioners submitting, that thereby, the petitioners, who were the accused persons, have been asked to produce evidence against themselves. 3. The said application has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara directing the petitioners to collect the original documents from the concerned department and to deposit the same in the Court. This order has been challenged by the petitioners submitting, that thereby, the petitioners, who were the accused persons, have been asked to produce evidence against themselves. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below directing the petitioners to produce the original documents in the Court amounts to compelling the petitioners to produce evidence against themselves. It has been submitted that even Section 91 of Cr.P.C. does not make the petitioners liable to produce the evidence against them in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which clearly provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be witnesses against himself. Learned counsel also referred to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act in support of his contention that the burden of proof lies on the State-appellant in the present case. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be set aside. 4. Learned APP on the other hand has submitted that the impugned order was passed in exercise of the power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which entitles the Court to require any person to produce document in his possession before the Court. Learned APP accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- “91. Summons to produce document or other thing. - (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 3 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. *** **** **** ” 5. *** **** **** ” 5. Thus, from plain reading of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., it is apparent that though the Court has the power to require any person in whose possession any document is believed to be, which is required for trail of the case, to attend and produce such document, but the Section nowhere empowers the Court to compel an accused to produce any evidence against him. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India clearly lays down that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be witness against himself. 6. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, it is apparent that by the impugned order dated 17.1.2012, the Court below has directed the petitioners, who are the accused of the offences charged, to collect the documents from the concerned Departments and to deposit the same in the Court, clearly meaning thereby, that the petitioners are directed by the Court below to produce evidence against themselves. The order is clearly in teeth of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which is a fundamental right of person accused of an offence, and as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 17.1.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara, is hereby, set-aside. In the facts of the case, the Court below is also directed to dispose of the appeal pending before it as expeditiously as possible. This application is, accordingly, allowed.