SORUALINGAM CHETTIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was charged by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Karaikudi, before the Sub Magistrate of Karaikudi with having contravened certain provisions of the Madras Shops and Establish, merits Act. The complainant also filed an application for the issue of summons to the accused for the production of certain documents in his custody. That application was granted by the Sub-Magistrate. The Accused then came to this Court in revision and a Bench of this Court, following the. decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharnla v. Satish Chandra, set aside the order of the Magistrate. They took the view that to require all accused person to produce a document in his custody by issuing a summons to him would amount to testimonial compulsion and therefore be repugnant to Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application on 1-11-1954 for the issue oi a search warrant and on that the Sub- Magistrate issued notice to the accused. Thereupon the accused came to this Court a second time complaining that the Sub-Magistrate ought not to have entertained, the memo for the issue of a general search warrant, Somasundaram J. who heard that revision petition allowed it and quashed the notice. He expressed himself thus :

(2.) Thereafter the Assistant Public Prosecutor applied to the Sub-Magistrate for the issue of a search warrant under Section 96(1) para 3, Criminal P. C. and . the learned Magistrate granted the prayer. The petitioner has now come to this Court a third time to have the order quashed.

(3.) Now, though by reason of Article 20(3) of the Constitution a Court is precluded from issuing summons to an accused person to produce any document or thing in his custody, no article of the Constitution prohibits either a search under Section 165, Criminal P. C. by the police of premises involved in a cognizable "offence or the issue of a search warrant by a Magistrate whet her the offence involved is cognizable or non-cognisable. It is easy to see where a different view . would lead us. A person may commit a murder and bury the body in the backyard of his house and he may commit burglary and keep the loot in an almirah inside his house. Or he may commit cheating and keep the proceeds thereof in a drawer of his writing desk, and they would all be as safe as if they had been lodged in the Bank of England. The Constitution is not intended to be a charter for the lawless and there is nothing in Article 20 of the Constitution or in any of its other articles to prohibit the police from searching either the person of the accused or the premises in the manner laid down by Criminal P. C. Nor have the powers of the Magistrate to issue a search warrant in the circumstances set out in the Code been abrogated by the Constitution. It is therefore impossible to say that the order of the learned Sub-Magistrate contravenes any article of the Constitution.