( 1 ) THIS Revision springs from an alleged violation of the fundamental right granted under Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution in the words: no Person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The question is of importance and requires careful consideration.

( 2 ) THE facts are these. Dhanna filed a complaint for offences under Sections 420, 405, 467 and 384 I. P. C. against four persons including one Subedar, and when the Magistrate decided to make a preliminary enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. , got them summoned as his witnesses in order to satisfy the Magistrate that there was just ground for issuing process against them. Three of the accused duly appeared and were examined as witnesses. But Subedar did not respond, and consequently Dhanna got a warrant issued against him. When he appeared in execution of the warrant he claimed the privilege of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution and contended that he could not be compelled to give evidence against himself. The learned Magistrate held that Subedar could not claim the privilege so long as he was not summoned as an accused person, and further that there were certain rulings