Reviewed case brief
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection
AIR 1974 SC 348
The authoritative decision distinguishing between testimonial compulsion (protected by Art. 20(3)) and physical/documentary evidence (not protected).
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Year
- 1974
- Subjects
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Reviewed
- 2026-06-29
Rule established
Art. 20(3) protects against testimonial compulsion, not against search and seizure of physical evidence. Seizure of documents from accused does not violate self-incrimination privilege.
Facts
Issues
Held
Ratio decidendi
How to use it in an exam
Editorial source
AIR
Educational summary only. Read the reported judgment or an authorised law report before relying on the case professionally.