1. The Petitioners Tmt. K. Senthamarai, the wife and Thiru. Krishnaraj, the husband, who are the accused in Crime No.lof 1996 on the file of CB CID, Madurai, have preferred this revision challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.105 of 1997 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 28-1-1997 directing the petitioners to appear on 17-2-1997 and to produce the original relinquishment deed in document No.221 of 1995 registered on 7. 1995 and a registered will in document No.72 of 1995.

2. The facts that are discernible from the petition and the counter filed before the Court and are relevant and required for the disposal of this revision, could be stated as follows:-

.(a) One Tmt.Dhanalakshmi, the wife of J.K.K. Natarajan, the second respondent in this revision, filed a complaint to the first respondent police on 2. 1996 alleging that the above referred documents, which were sought to be summoned, were forged and that the petitioners 1 and 2, who are the accused 1 and 2, along with the others have committed the offences of cheating, forgery, etc.

.(b) On 23. 1996, the first respondent registered the case for the offences under Sections 419,420, 467 and 468,1.P.C. against the petitioners and others.

.(c) While so, the first petitioner Senthamarai filed a civil suit in O.S.No 57 of 1996 before Sub Court, Erode, praying for declaration that the will in document No.72 of 1995, said to be executed by J.K.K. Natarajan in her favour, is a genuine and valid document.

.(d) In the said suit, the complainant is the defendant, who filed a memo before the Civil Court to direct the plaintiff to produce the original will before the Court for inspection as referred earlier. The will, the subject-matter of the suit, is one of the documents, which is sought to be summoned by the impugned order

.(e) At this stage, the first respondent Police filed a requisition, which was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.105 of 1997, before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, where the F.I.R. is pending, requesting the Court to issue summons to the accused, the petitioners Senthamarai and Krishnaraj to produce the two questioned documents, namely, document No.221 of 1995, the relinquishment deed, said to be signed by the complainant, and the original will (document No.72 of 1995), said to be executed by J.K.K.Natarajan, the husband of the complainant, the first respondent herein, in favour of the first petitioner, and to direct them to appear for obtaining their specimen signature and thumb impression for comparison.

.(f) The above requisition was entertained and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the order in question dated 21. 1997 directed the petitioners 1 and 2 to appear and produce the above documents. However, there is no direction to appear for obtaining their specimen signature and thumb impression for comparison. This is how this revision has come up before this Court questioning the impugned order dated 21. 1997 by the petitioners.

3. Mr.K.A. Panchapagesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that the learned Magistrate, obviously acting under Section 91, Cr.P.C, has passed impugned order, without jurisdiction, directing the petitioners for production of documents, in total violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, the Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the Investigating Officer, and Mr.Govindaswaminathan, the learned senior counsel representing Mr.Susindran, appearing for the second respondent, would contend that the learned Magistrate is well within his rights to pass such an order under Section 91, Cr.P.C, as those documents summoned are not such as the documents which are the statements of the accused conveying their personal knowledge relating to the accusation against them. It is further contended that the documents summoned by the Cou