STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHYAMLAL MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Nadiad recommending that the order passed by the trial Court on an application of the Police Prosecutor of Umreth for issuing a summons to an accused person to produce certain documents be set aside. The Police Prosecutor Umreth had requested the trial Magistrate to direct an accused person who was accused in a case under the Bombay Money Lenders Act to produce certain account books which he was alleged to be in possession of and which were likely to be used by the prosecution to prove its case. The learned trial Magistrate rejected this application. But the learned Sessions Judge before whom the State went in revision was of the view that the accused can be compelled to produce account books in his possession if they do not contain any personal statement of the accused. He was of the view that the provisions contained in clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution did not apply. Therefore he made a reference to the High Court to issue suitable directions to the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The learned Magistrate rejected the application given by the Police Prosecutor to direct the accused to produce the account books. When such an application comes up before a Magistrate for orders the Magis- trate must decide atleast two things: (1) whether he has powers to do so and if so under what provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and (2) if there is a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for issuing such directions whether Article 20 clause (3) of the Constitution prohibits him from doing so.

(3.) Article 20 of the Constitution reads as follows:-