for the purposes of the investigation, in a certain type of documents relating to a particular matter without the appellant's knowledge of additional details. There may also be situations in which the needs of the investigation will justify that the prosecution will not specify beyond the requirement to present a certain type of documents in order to avoid revealing information that may sabotage the investigation. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the application for an order under section 43 should specify certain documents specifically, as requested by the appellant's defense attorney.
In general, the degree of identification and detail of the documents that must be presented or delivered in accordance with an order under section 43 is left to the discretion of the court issuing the order, which will decide on it according to the circumstances. Of course, the order must be clear so that the person who is obligated to produce an object will clearly know what is required of him. However, it is not necessary that the required documents be identified and described in detail.
- The appellant argued before us that as part of the inquiry into the fulfillment of the order, the house does not have-The law has the authority to clarify questions regarding the location of the objects prior to the issuance of the order on-his hands. This argument does not seem to me to be the same. Admittedly, the date of issuance of the order is the determining date for the purpose of examining the question of what objects are in his possession and in the possession of the recipient of the order in the sense that he must deliver them to the house-The judgment applies only those objects that are in his possession and possession as of this date, however, when clarifying the question of whether the order is fulfilled, a house is permitted to-The law, so far as it is required, is to ascertain whether the documents are in the control of the appellant, and in this framework to examine the question of whether the recipient of the order transferred the documents to another person on his behalf before the order was delivered to him. Such a transfer may indicate that the recipient of the order has control over the objects on the day the order was issued and that he has access to them. On-Similarly, in cases where this is required in order to clarify the question of the actual possession or control of the objects of the recipient of the order, a house may-The law to conduct an inquiry regarding the location of the objects also proceeds to the issuance of the order on-His hands.
- The purpose of judicial review is, as stated, to ensure the existence of the order, on-Yes, and to the extent that it is required, there is a house-The law also has the power to testify the recipient of the order himself and to clarify with him the questions relating to the fulfillment of the order. This power, presumably, will be exercised only in those cases where there are appropriate indications that the order is not being complied with, and the testimony of the recipient of the order will be important for clarifying the facts.
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that even assuming that the court has the authority to conduct an inquiry as to the location of the documents and as to the existence of the order, in the course of this inquiry the witness, if he is also a suspect, has the right to remain silent, which gives him the right to remain silent and not to answer the questions addressed to him by the court. I am unable to accept this argument. This is a proceeding for the purpose of presenting documents