( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is directed against an Order passed by the Sessions Judge Broach dismissing a Revision Application preferred by the petitioner against an Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach rejecting the petitioners application on to cancel an earlier Order dated 21/08/1959 passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to produce certain books of account in a Criminal Case pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Magistrate.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this Revision Application may be briefly stated as follows: Opponent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach charging the petitioner for an offence under sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was numbered as Criminal Case No. 110) of 1959. During the pendency of the complaint Opponent No. 1 made an application to the learned Magistrate under sec. 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an Order requiring the petitioner to produce certain books of account mentioned in that application. An order was passed by the learned Magistrate at the foot of the application on 21/08/1959 which was in the following terms:

( 3 ) THE accused should produce the books of account stated in the application on the next date.

( 4 ) SOME controversy was raised before us as to whether the learned Magistrate made the Order on the basis of an agreement by the petitioner that he would produce the books of account on the next date of the hearing. We shall refer to that controversy when we deal with the arguments advanced before us on behalf of the parties.

( 5 ) IT appears that the petitioner thereafter made an application Exhibit 17 to the learned Magistrate on 12/09/1959 praying that the application of Opponent No. 1 for production of the books of account should be rejected. By this application the petitioner in effect sought a cancellation of the Order dated 21/08/1959 which had been passed by the learned Magistrate on the application of Opponent No. 1. The ground on which the application was based was that by reason of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India the petitioner could not be compelled to produce the books of account inasmuch as the production of the books of account would amount to testimonial compulsion so as to attract the applicability of Article 20 (3 ). The application was opposed by Opponent No. 1 and the learned Magistrate by an Order dated 30/12/1959 negatived the plea of the petitioner based on the provisions of Article 20 (3) and rejected the application and ordered the petitioner to produce the books of account as prayed for by Opponent No. 1.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the Order of the learned Magistrate dismissing his application the petitioner preferred a Revision Application against the same to the Sessions Judge Broach. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision application on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection against compulsion of self-incrimination contained in Article 20 (3) and that in any event the books of account which the petitioner was ordered to produce were public documents and the constitutional guarantee under Article 20 (3) did not extend to such documents. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly held that the Order of the learned Magistrate was correct and legal and declined to interfere in the matter. The petitioner therefore preferred the present Revision Application before us.

( 7 ) IN this Revision Application Mr. I. C. Bhatt learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner challenged the vires of sec. 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a notice was therefore ordered to be issued to the Attorney General In response to the notice the learned Advocate General has appeared before us on behalf of the Attorney General to support the vires of sec. 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 17 may however be mentioned that in the courses of the arguments Mr. I. C. Bhatt gave