K HIRIYANNA SETTY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before this Court is the 2nd accused in CC. 2992/72 on the file of the II City Magistrate, Mysore. Proceedings had been instituted against accused 1 and 2 under S.67 of the Factories Act, 1948. While the case was pending, on the application made by the APP. under S.94 CrPC. the learned Magistrate issued summons to the 2nd accused to produce certain documents which were in his custody. This order issuing summons to the 2nd accused, is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) Sri V. N. Satyanarayana learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the learned Magistrate was not competent to issue such summons to the petitioner as the same is hit by sub-clause (3) of Art.20 of the Constitution of India. Strong reliance ig placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.Sharma v. Satish Chandra AIR. 1954 SC. 300.and on the decision of the Madras High Court in Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Asst. Labour Inspector, Karaikudi AIR. 1956 Mad. 165. in support of the said contention. The learned Counsel has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad(3) .

(3.) In Sharma's Case (1) referred to above, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out that guarantee under Art. 20(3) would be available to an accused when any compulsory process is issued against him for production of any evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution case against him.