Section 144

This rule protects people who are merely custodians of documents—like clerks, bank officials, or record-keepers—from being dragged into adversarial questioning simply because they were the ones holding a paper the court needed. Historically, courts recognized a difference between someone testifying about facts (a witness) and someone acting as a conduit to produce physical evidence. Without this protection, anyone holding a relevant document could be harassed with cross-examination even though they have no personal knowledge of the case's facts. The provision traces back to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and has been carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, preserving a long-standing procedural safeguard.

Indian courts have consistently held that production of a document under summons (often issued under provisions like Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now updated in the BNSS) is a ministerial act, not testimony. Courts have clarified that if a party wants to question the person who produced the document—about its authenticity, origin, or content—that person must be formally called and examined as a witness, with an oath administered, before cross-examination can occur. This distinction has been used to prevent procedural shortcuts where litigants try to cross-examine record-keepers without following proper witness examination procedures.

• Myth: If you're summoned to produce a document in court, you automatically become a witness and can be questioned by any party.
  Fact: Producing a document under summons is a separate act from being a witness. You can only be cross-examined if you are formally called and sworn in as a witness.
• Myth: Lawyers can cross-examine anyone who physically hands over evidence in court.
  Fact: Cross-examination rights only apply to sworn witnesses, not to people who merely deliver documents as instructed.