A person accused of an offence is entitled to the protection against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which extends to compelled testimony previously obtained from him.

1. In this petition presented under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code the only question that arises is whether the petitioner is a person accused of an offence entitled to the protection of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the statement made by him to P.W.1 on 4-9-1970 is inadmissible in evidence against him.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition may be broadly stated. The petitioner is the first accused in the case. He is the partner of the firm M/s. R.L. Bhagwan Das. Amritsar who deals in manufacture of gold ornaments and jewellery of 22 carats. Their firm gets ornaments and jewellery made out in their shop. The firm has licence No.91/Gold dealer/ASR/63 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Amritsar to sell gold ornaments throughout India. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the servants and authorised persons of the firm. Accused No.2 attends to the sale of old ornaments of the firm while accused No.3 assists accused No.2.Under the direction of Accused No.1 Accused Nos.2 and 3 were selling old ornaments as representatives of the firm in the various Districts of Andhra Pradesh.

3. On 28-8-1970 at about 21-45 Hrs. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were detained at Waltair Railway Station Platform when they were about to board Howrah-Madras Janata Express, on suspicion that they were in possession of contraband gold jewellery by the Railway Police Constable M.A. Mohan. The said Railway Police Constable sent message to P.W.1 the Customs Officer who immediately proceeded to the Waltair Railway Station and in the presence of mediators searched accused 2 and 3 and found 153 pieces of Gold ornaments, cash and number of documents and account books and seized the same under a mediator's report attested by the mediators. Accused 2 and 3 could not account for the said pieces of the gold ornaments and the articles found in their possession did not tally with the ornaments noted in other records or accounts in the possession of accused 2 and 3.

4. On 3-9-1970, the Customs Officer recorded the statements of accused 2 and 3.In these statements, both the accused admitted that they were the sales representatives of M/s. R.L. Bhagwan Das, Amritsar (Accused 1) who are dealers in old ornaments and jewellery and that they had started on 27-7-1970 from Amritsar with 135 pieces weighing 1406.725 gms of old ornaments of 22 carat purity. They further stated that the old jewellery seized by the Customs officials and the gold jewellery brought by them for sale were not the same, that they did not know how the old jewellery seized from them came into their possession and that they could not also explain what happened to the gold jewellery brought by them for sale. On 4-9-1970, P.W.1 recorded a statement from accused 1.Subsequently all the three accused were prosecuted for offences under Sections 85, 87 and 88 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

5. During the course of the examination of the Customs Officer, as P.W.1 when the statement said to have been recorded by P.W.1 from Accused No.1 on 4-9-1970 was sought to be marked as evidence against the accused, the learned Counsel for the accused took an objection for its admission on the ground that it was hit under Sections 24 and 25 or the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The learned Magistrate overruled the objection and directed that the document be admitted. It is this order of the learned Magistrate that is sought to be quashed in this petition.

6. The principal and only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Bhujanga Rao was that the first accused was a "person accused of an offence" within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution by the title his statement was recorded by P.W.1 on 4-9-1970 and that the said statement was therefore inadmissible in evidence. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions reported in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 : (1954 Cri LJ 865) and R.B. Shah