Section 43 uses the language "in his possession or in his possession". The literal interpretation of this phrase is broader than mere physical possession, which the appellant claims. If not, what was the point of adding the term "in his possession" in addition to the term "in his possession"? The term "possession" in itself indicates control of an object that extends beyond its physical possession alone.
The legislative history of the section also teaches us about the broad interpretation that should be given to the term "in his possession". The source of section 43 is in section 15 of the Criminal Procedure (Arrest and Searches) Ordinance, which reads:
"15. When a magistrate considers the production of any document or other thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, enquiry or trail, he may issue a summons to any person in whose possession or power the document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it or to cause it to be produced at the time and place stated in the summons" (My emphases - T.A.) .
In 1969, a new Hebrew version of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Arrest and Search) was drafted. The terms "possession" and "power" were replaced by the terms "possession or possession," which are the subject of our discussion. In the framework of the interpretation of the new terms, weight should be given to the terms in the old version. "... It is presumed that the purpose of the old version is also the purpose of the new version, taking into account the changes that took place between the date of the enactment of the old version and the date of the interpretation of the new version... " (Civil Appeal 2000/97 Lindorn v. Karnit - Fund for the Compensation of Road Accident Victims [2] and see also Criminal Appeal 524/82 and Dard v. State of Israel [3], at p. 558). In our case, the term "power" in the old version indicates that the original application of the section was broad and did not extend only to objects that are in a person's physical and immediate possession, but also to objects under his control, such as those with which he has the power to seize possession.
- The broad interpretation of the section is also learned from its purpose. The purpose of the section is to promote "Needs of the investigation or trial" by way of granting orders for the delivery of objects. This purpose will be thwarted if we interpret the section in such a way that it is determined that once a person's physical possession of the document has ceased, he is no longer commanded to deliver it. Such an interpretation will lead to the fact that in cases where people hand over the documents relating to their affairs to other people on-In order for them to be held for them, they will not be obligated to hand over the documents on-pursuant to an order by virtue of Article 43. Such an interpretation will also allow witnesses or suspects who are interested in thwarting the investigation to conceal documents in advance