This is a revision against issue of notice to the petitioner to show cause why a general search warrant as asked for by the Sub-Inspector of Karaikudi should not be issued. The warrant is to make a search of the premises of Karaikudi Railway Out Agency and obtain the documents mentioned in the list attached to the petition filed by the Sub-Inspector. Before this application was filed by the Sub-Inspector, the accused himself was asked to produce certain documents. On that he came up in Crl.R.C.No.677 of 1954 asking for quashing of that order on the ground that it offends Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. A Bench of this Court following a decision of the Supreme Court in I P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra1, held that the petition must be allowed.2 In allowing the petition My Lord the Chief Justice and Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., observed that the guarantee under Art.20(3) would extend to any compulsory pro cess for production of evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution against the accused. They therefore quashed the order, asking the accused to produce the documents. After that, the petition by the Sub-Inspector was filed in the lower Court asking fo