H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) This is an application in revision against an order dated 20 -8 -1969 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur, dismissing the applicant's revision petition against an order dated 2 -11 -1968 passed by the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (J), Rampur, in a case u/Ss. 295 -A /153 -A of the IPC. The applicant is being prosecuted for an offence u/Ss. 295 -A /153 -A of the IPC for having published certain inflammatory articles in Qaumi Jang, Rampur in its issues dated 27 -5 -1968, 30 -5 -1968, 31 -5 -1968 and 1 -6 -1968, on a complaint made by Sri Ved Prakash, Information Officer. During pendency of the trial, the complainant moved an application, headed u/S. 94 of the CrPC and S. 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that it was desirable to summon the issues of newspaper Qaumi Jang of the dates 27 -5 -1968, 30 -5 -1968, 31 -5 -1968 and 1 -6 -1968 and also 2 -11 -1968 from the accused. It was, therefore, prayed that the aforesaid issues be kindly summoned from the accused and he be ordered to produce them in court at an early date. On 2 -11 -1968 the learned Magistrate made an order to the effect that if the accused was present in court he would comply with the prayer made in the application on or before the next date fixed in the case.
(2.) The applicant went up in revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur. On his behalf it was contended that the order dated 2 -11 -1968 amounted to testimonial compulsion, which is prohibited u/Art. 20 of the Constitution of India. It was, accordingly, an order which was illegal and ultravires and was liable to be set aside.
(3.) Learned Sessions Judge pointed out that the relevant issues of the paper Qaumi Jang had already been filed on behalf of the prosecution along with the complaint. The prosecution wanted to get the issues of Qaumi Jang of those dates summoned from the accused in order to get the original of those documents on the record. Only idea of summoning those documents was to get the copies of the newspapers filed by the prosecution along with the complaint, admitted in evidence as secondary evidence, in case the accused, declined to produce the original issues of the newspaper as requested by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge further pointed out that in the circumstance, order made for summoning the issues of Qaumi Jang, was not covered by S. 94 of the CrPC. There was thus no question of compelling the accused to give evidence against himself which act is prohibited by Art. 20 of the Constitution of India. The revision application filed by the applicant was accordingly dismissed. The accused has now come up in revision before this Court.;