S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal revision under s. 397/461 read with s. 482, Cr. P. C. against the order and directions dated June 8, 1983 made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar.
(2.) THE petitioner is the Chairman of the Urban Improvement Trust, Sri-Ganganagar (for short the U. I. T. ' ). Non-petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash Bansal filed a complaint under secs. 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 408 and 120-B, I. P. C. against the petitioner as Chairman of the U. I. T. and non-petitioner No. 3 to 6 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar on June 2, 1983. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to hold an enquiry under s. 202 (1), Cr. P. C. Before examining the witnesses in support of the complaint, a date was fixed for report Before producing the evidence in support of the complaint, the complainant filed an application on June 6, 1983 for summoning of the record mentioned in the application from the office of the U. I. T. , Sriganganagar. On June 7, 1983, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that requisitioning of the record was necessary. He, therefore, ordered that the letter summoning the record be sent to the U. I. T. and it may be directed to send the record before the next date of hearing. In pursuance of the order dated June 7, 1983, a letter dated June 8, 1983 was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar to the Chairman, U. I. T. , Sriganganagar stating that in connection with the complaint filed by Om Prakash Bansal against Radhey Shyam and others, the record mentioned therein is necessary and, therefore, it may be sent without delay. On receipt of this letter, as this letter was issued to the Chairman, U. I. T. Sriganganagar, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision as aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar had no jurisdiction to pass the order and make the directions contained in the letter dated June 8, 1983 as s. 91, Cr. P. C. does not apply to an accused-person and no summons can be issued to the accused compelling him to produce the documents, which incriminate him. He referred to Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution showing that an accused-person cannot be compelled to disclose documents, which are incriminatory and based on his knowledge. Mr. M. L. Garg appearing for non-petitioner No. 2 (complainant) not only resisted the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but also pressed that the petitioner cannot file this revision as cognizance has not been taken against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and, therefore, the revision should be dismissed as pre-mature and non-maintainable. In these circumstances, two questions crop up for my determination in this criminal revision, namely, (1) whether the petitioner, against whom cognizance has not been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, can agitate the order and directions nnade in the letter dated June 8, 1983, for production of the record mentioned therein as the letter was addressed to the Chairman, U. I. T. , Sriganganagar and the petitioner holds that office and (2) whether no order or direction could be given under s. 91, Cr. P. C. and it is in breach of Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution. It may be stated that the certified copy of the order-sheet dated June 7, 1983 was placed for my perusal by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner complainant. Its correctness was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is written therein as follows :-
(3.) ESJS fopkj esa mdr fjdkmz ryc fd;k tkuk vko';d izrhr gksrk gsa fjdkmz rych dh fpvbh ;w-vkbz-Vh- ds uke fy[kh tkosa fjdkmz vne rkjh[k is'kh ls iwoz Hkstus dks fy[kk tkosa In pursuance of that, the letter dated June 8, 1983 was written to the Chairman, U. I. T. , Sriganganagar. Ake up the first question first. ;