( 1 ) THE question raised in this criminal revision is whether an order passed by a Court under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure attracts the prohibition contained in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The question arises under the following circumstances.

( 2 ) MOHAN Lal Sharma filed a complaint against Rule C. Gupta under Sections 406, 477, 467 and 201,. P. C. The case was in the stage of an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The complainant applied to the trial Court for an order to the police for recovery of certain documents from the possession of the accused under Section 96, Cr. P. C. Accordingly, the trial Court issued a search warrant under Section 96, Cr. P. C. to the station officer, Kotwali, Agra. The case was on the file of the Hony. Cantonment Bench Magistrates, Agra, Subsequently, the trial Court issued a summons to the accused calling upon him to appear either himself or produce some of his subordinates and to produce certain documents in the Court. An objection was filed on behalf of the accused. The main point raised in the objection was that, under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution the accused could not be compelled to produce evidence against himself. The objection was overruled. On 19-2-1957 the trial Court passed the following order :

"arguments heard. The applicant shall produce documents required to be produced. "

( 3 ) R. C. Gupta accused filed a revision application against the trial Courts order dated 19-2-1957. That criminal revision was dismissed by the learned Additional District Magistrate of agra by his order dated 21-5-1957. He held that there was no violation of Article 20 (3) of the constitution. Rule C. Gupta filed the present criminal revision against the Additional District magistrates order dated 21-5-1957. When the criminal revision came up before a learned single Judge of this Court, he thought that the case should be heard by a Bench of two fudges, in view of the importance of the question of law involved in the case. That is how this criminal revision has come up before us.

( 4 ) SECTION 94, Cr. P. C. enables a Court to issue a summons to produce a document or any other thing. Section 96 of the Code empowers the Court to issue a search warrant. These are different provisions for production of documents before the Court. Clause (3) of Article 20 of the constitution runs thus "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. " The question to be considered in the present case is whether Article 20 (3) of the Constitution is contravened, when a summons to produce a document is issued against a person, who is an accused in a case.

( 5 ) A somewhat similar question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme court in M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300. In that case the question considered by the Supreme Court was the validity of a search warrant issued under Section 96, Cr, P. C. Their Lordships however had occasion to discuss orders under Section 94, Cr. P. C, also. In paragraph 10 of the judgment in M. P. Sharmas case, AIR 1954 SC 300 their Lordships observed thus :

"broadly stated the guarantee in Article 20 (3) is against "testimonial compulsion. " It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. . . . . A person can "be a witness" not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness or the like. "to be a witness" is nothing more than "to furnish evidence", and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. . . . . It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase "to be a witness" is not merely in resp