( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Nadiad recommending that the order passed by the trial Court on an application of the Police Prosecutor of Umreth for issuing a summons to an accused person to produce certain documents be set aside. The Police Prosecutor Umreth had requested the trial Magistrate to direct an accused person who was accused in a case under the Bombay Money Lenders Act to produce certain account books which he was alleged to be in possession of and which were likely to be used by the prosecution to prove its case. The learned trial Magistrate rejected this application. But the learned Sessions Judge before whom the State went in revision was of the view that the accused can be compelled to produce account books in his possession if they do not contain any personal statement of the accused. He was of the view that the provisions contained in clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution did not apply. Therefore he made a reference to the High Court to issue suitable directions to the learned Magistrate.

( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate rejected the application given by the Police Prosecutor to direct the accused to produce the account books. When such an application comes up before a Magistrate for orders the Magis- trate must decide atleast two things: (1) whether he has powers to do so and if so under what provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and (2) if there is a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for issuing such directions whether Article 20 clause (3) of the Constitution prohibits him from doing so.

( 3 ) ARTICLE 20 of the Constitution reads as follows:- (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged of an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at he time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

( 4 ) INTERPRETATION of clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of the decisions by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court and therefore it is not necessary for me to discuss this question beyond reproducing the conclusions of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court which are found at page 249 in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu 64 B. L. R. 249. His Lordship Sinha C. J. has observed as follows:

( 5 ) IN view of these considerations we have come to the following conclusions : (1) An accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody without anything more. In other words the mere fact of being in police custody at the time when the statement in question was made would not by itself as a proposition of law lend itself to the inference that the accused was compelled to make the statement though that fact in conjunction with other circumstances disclosed in evidence in a particular case. would be a relevant consideration in an enquiry whether or not the accused had been compelled to make the impugned statement. (2) The mere questioning of an accused person by a police officer resulting in a voluntary statement which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory is not compulsion. (3) To be a witness is not equivalent to furnishing evidence in its widest significance; that is to say as including not merely making of oral or written statements but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. (4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body of way of identification are not included in the expression to be a witness. (5) To be a witness means imparting knowledge in respect of r