(Petition (disposed of on 21-9-1954) under Ss. 435 and 439, Crl. P.C., 1898 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Sub Magistrates Court, Karaikudi, dated 20-7-1954 in C.C. No. 1380 of 1954.)

Rajamannar, CJ.

This is an application by the first accused in C.C. No. 1380 of 1954 on the file of the Court of the Sub Magistrate, Karaikudi, to revise the order of the Sub Magistrate, directing summons under S. 94, Crl. P.C. to issue to the accused for the production of certain documents in his possession. The accused was charged with the offence of contravening the provisions of the Shops land Establishments Act, and it was alleged by the prosecution that the documents necessary for the purpose of the trial of the case were with the accused, as they were accounts being maintained by the accused in the usual course of his business. On behalf of the accused, objection was taken to the production of the documents, based on Art. 20(3) of the Constitution, which provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Magistrate overruled the objection and directed summons to issue for the production of the documents.

In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in their recent decision in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 300 = 1954 S.C.J. 428), this petition must be allowed. Their Lordships therein observed that the guarantee under Art. 20(3) would extend to any compulsory process for production of evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution against the accused. Having regard to these observations, reliance cannot be placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Kinkar v. Nikhil Chandra (A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 101) [LQ/CalHC/1951/118] . The objection of the documents in question must, therefore, be upheld.

The criminal revision case is allow and the order of the Sub Magistrate set aside.