RAMESH KUMAR PATEL Vs. KODURAM GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-8-1972 passed by Magistrate First Class in a Criminal Case.

(2.) THE non-applicants filed a complaint against the applicant and 2 others under section 395 and certain other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate registered a case under sections 392, 294 and 323 of the indian Penal Code. The case of the non-applicant as laid in the complaint was that on 16-4-72 the applicant along with others forcibly and illegally removed a bus from their possession. At the instance of the non-applicants the trial Magistrate issued a search warrant under section 96 of the Code of criminal Procedure for production of the bus. The applicant later on offered to produce the bus in order to secure withdrawal of the warrant. The Magistrate, therefore, directed that if the bus was not produced within 15 days the search warrant shall be issued. Being aggrieved by this order the applicant preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. He has, therefore, come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a search warrant cannot be issued against the accused. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi (AIR 1965 SC 1251 ). In that case their Lordships held that even though the language of section 94 is general it is not applicable to an accused person. In arriving at this conclusion their Lordships referred to sub clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India which lays down that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.