R C GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this criminal revision is whether an order passed by a Court under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure attracts the prohibition contained in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The question arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) Mohan Lal Sharma filed a complaint against Rule C. Gupta under Sections 406, 477, 467 and 201, I.P.C. The case was in the stage of an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The complainant applied to the trial Court for an order to the police for recovery of certain documents from the possession of the accused under Section 96, Cr. P. C. Accordingly, the trial Court issued a search warrant under Section 96, Cr. P. C. to the station officer, Kotwali, Agra. The case was on the file of the Hony. Cantonment Bench Magistrates, Agra, Subsequently, the trial Court issued a summons to the accused calling upon him to appear either himself or produce some of his subordinates and to produce certain documents in the Court. An objection was filed on behalf of the accused. The main point raised in the objection was that, under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution the accused could not be compelled to produce evidence against himself. The objection was overruled. On 19-2-1957 the trial Court passed the following order :

(3.) R. C. Gupta accused filed a revision application against the trial Court's order dated 19-2-1957. That criminal revision was dismissed by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Agra by his order dated 21-5-1957. He held that there was no violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Rule C. Gupta filed the present criminal revision against the Additional District Magistrate's order dated 21-5-1957. When the criminal revision came up before a learned single Judge of this Court, he thought that the case should be heard by a Bench of two fudges, in view of the importance of the question of law involved in the case. That is how this criminal revision has come up before us.