Swarnalingam Chettiar vs Assistant Labour Inspector Karaikudi

Rajamannar, C.J.—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 u/s 94, Criminal 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 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 Article 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 document.

In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in their recent decision in M.P. Sharma and Others Vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate,

Delhi and Others, this petition must be allowed. Their Lordships therein observed that the guarantee under Article 20 (3) would extend tot 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 Roy Vs. Nikhil Chandra

Jyotishopadhaya, . 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.