JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - This is an application in revision against an order dated 20th of August, 1969 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, dismissing the applicant's revision petition against an order dated 2nd of November 1968 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) , Rampur, in a case under Secs. 295 A/153-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant is being prosecuted for an offence under Secs. 295-A/153-A of the Indian Penal Code for having published certain inflammatory articles in Qaumi Jang, Rampur in its issues dated 27th of May 1968, 30th of May 1968, 31st of May 1968 and 1st of June 1968, on a complaint made by Sri Ved Prakash Information Officer. During pendency of the trial, the complainant moved an application, headed under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that it was desirable to summon the issues of news-paper Qaumi Jang of the dates 27th of May 1968, 30th of May 1968, 31st of May 1968 and 1st of June 1968 and also 2nd of November 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 2nd of November 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. 3. The applicant went up in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur. On his behalf it was contended that the order dated 2nd of November 1968 amounted to testimonial compulsion, which is prohibited under Art- 20 of the Constitution of India. It was, accordingly, an order which was illegal and ultra vires and was liable to be set aside. 4. 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. 4. 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 news-papers 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 news-paper 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 Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was thus no question of compelling the accused to give evidence against himself, which act is prohibited by Article 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. 5. Before me also, Sri Abidi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has strenuously contended that the order summoning original of the news-paper from the possession of the accused was one under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such an order is illegal and ultravires as being in contravention of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. In this connection he relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta v. The State, A.I.R. 1969 , Alld. 219. In this case it was held that : "The expression "to be a witness" used in Article 29 (3) of the Constitution has to be read in a wide sense. That expression includes furnishing evidence. An order under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is directed to a person to produce documents before the Court. Such an order is clearly an order to furnish evidence. Such an order therefore attracts the prohibition contained in clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution." 6. Although, the application for summoning the news-papers, was headed as being under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the stand taken by the prosecution is that the accused is not being compelled to produce those documents. Such an order therefore attracts the prohibition contained in clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution." 6. Although, the application for summoning the news-papers, was headed as being under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the stand taken by the prosecution is that the accused is not being compelled to produce those documents. It is open to the accused not to produce the documents, if he so desires. The object of moving the application was merely to make the newspapers already filed along with the complaint admissible in evidence, in case it is held that they were not the primary evidence of what has been published by the accused. 7. Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act provides that secondary evidence may be given of the contents of a document if the original is shown or appears to be in possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved. Sec. 66 of the Act, however, provides that no such secondary evidence shall be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no such notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case. A proviso has been added to this section which enables a court to dispense with a notice under this section before admitting secondary evidence. In view of the stand taken by the prosecution that the accused is free either to produce or not to produce the document at his sweet will, and no penal consequence will follow if he does not produce the documents, it is clear that the applicant is not being compelled to give evidence against himself and the order made by the Magistrate does not amount to testimonial compulsion forbidden by Article 20. An attempt by a party to the proceeding, to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act, so as to enable it to adduce secondary evidence in a case, cannot possibly amount to compelling a person to give evidence against himself. 8. An attempt by a party to the proceeding, to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act, so as to enable it to adduce secondary evidence in a case, cannot possibly amount to compelling a person to give evidence against himself. 8. In the instant case, learned counsel for the State has made it clear that an application for summoning the document was made so that the accused may have the notice contemplated by Section 66 of the Evidence Act, and if necessary prosecution may be in a position to get secondary evidence of the contents of various news-papers on the record. It will be for the court below to deal with the case in accordance with law and to decide whether in the circumstances the copies of the news-papers already filed along with the complaint should be admitted in evidence either as primary or as secondary evidence in the case. 9. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order made by the Magistrate. The revision application accordingly fails and is rejected.