1954 JTR(Mad) 419
1956 AIR(Mad) 165 ; 1955 68 LW 737 ; 1955 2 MLJ 267 ; 1956 KHC 5146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice RajagopalaAyyangar, JJ.
Swarnalingam Chettiar
Versus
Assistant Labour Inspector, Karaikudi
Crl.R.C.No.677 of 1954. (Crl.R.C.No.635 of 1954).
Decided On : 21 September 1954
Accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against him.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.20(3)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.94
Constitution of India- Article 20(3) - Scope -Issuance of summon to accused u/s 94 of Cr. P.C., 1898 for production of certain documents- Held, accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against him.
N. Arunachalam and S. Swamikannu for Petitioner.
The Advocate-General (V.K.Thiruvenkatachari) with Srimathi Padmini Raghavan for the Public Prosecutor (V.T.Rangaswami Aiyangar) for Respondent.
Rajamannar, C.J.-This is an application by the 1st 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 section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 and 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 Chandra1, this petition must be allowed. Their Lordships therein observed that the guarantee under Article 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. Nikhal Chondra.1 The objection of the accused to the production of the documents in question must, therefore, be upheld.
The Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the Order of the Sub-Magistrate set aside.
K.S. ----- Revision allowed.