The petitioner was charged by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Karaikudi, before the Sub-Magistrate of Karaikudi with having contravened certain provisions of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. The complainant also filed an application for the issue of summons to the accused for the production of certain documents in his custody. That application was granted by the Sub-Magistrate. The accused then came to this Court in Revision and a Bench of this Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.Sharma v. Satish Chandra1, set aside the order of the magistrate2. They took the view that to require an accused person to produce a document in his custody by issuing a summons to him would amount to testimonial compulsion and therefore be repugnant to Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application on 1st November, 1954, for the issue of a search warrant and on that the Sub-Magistrate issued notice to the accused. Thereupon, the accused came to this Court a second time complaining that the Sub-Magistrate ought not to have entertained the memo. for the issue of a general search warrant. Somasundaram, J., who heard that revision p