MADAN LAL JOJODIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision against an interlocutory order dated 49-1956 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Khurda in a criminal case under Section 409, Penal Code, pending against the petitioner in his file.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate, at the request of the prosecution, called upon the petitioner-accused to produce his F. P. S. Register (Foodgrains Procurement Stock Register ). This order appears to have been passed by the Magistrate under Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code, though that section was not expressly quoted in the order. The order was challenged as unconstitutional on the ground that it contravened the fundamental right guaranteed by Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution, Reliance was placed mainly on a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 (A), where it was held that the guarantee in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution though against 'testimonial compulsion' would include protection against any process for production of evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution against the accused.

(3.) IT is necessary to briefly recapitulate some of the essential facts. The petitioner-accused is the Managing Director of Sri Biswanath Rice Mills Ltd. , Jatni. For the year 1952-53 and 1953-54 he was both a Purchasing Agent and Miller-Agent for the Government of Orissa in the District of Purl. It is also admitted by Mr. Misra on behalf of the petitioner, though no evidence has yet been adduced by the prosecution on the subject, that the petitioner was during the relevant period a licensee under the Orissa Food, Grains Control Order, 1951 which was in force then. The terms of the agreement between him and the Government of Orissa show that he was appointed as an agent of the Government for the purpose of purchasing food grains in the area allotted to him by the Collector on behalf of the Government, storage of the same and subsequent disposal in accordance with the instructions that may be issued from time to time by the Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf. He was required to work under the direction and control of the Collector on all matters pertaining to the agency including the price at which the foodgrains should be purchased and sold, the place and manner of storage and disposal of the foodgrains. The purchase of the foodgrains was made by him on behalf of the Government who through the Collector advanced sums from time to time to enable him to make the purchase. The Collector was conferred power to inspect the stocks and also to inspect the various books of accounts which the petitioner was required to maintain under Clause 12 of the agreement. The petitioner also undertook to produce for inspection his books of accounts at such times and at such places as may be fixed by the Collector. He was allowed a liberal commission for the services rendered by him to the Government. The Miller-agency agreement is also of a similar kind and it is not necessary to refer to it in detail.