JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-8-1972 passed by Magistrate First Class in a Criminal Case. ( 2. ) THE non-applicants filed a complaint against the applicant and 2 others under section 395 and certain other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate registered a case under sections 392, 294 and 323 of the indian Penal Code. The case of the non-applicant as laid in the complaint was that on 16-4-72 the applicant along with others forcibly and illegally removed a bus from their possession. At the instance of the non-applicants the trial Magistrate issued a search warrant under section 96 of the Code of criminal Procedure for production of the bus. The applicant later on offered to produce the bus in order to secure withdrawal of the warrant. The Magistrate, therefore, directed that if the bus was not produced within 15 days the search warrant shall be issued. Being aggrieved by this order the applicant preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. He has, therefore, come up in revision before this Court. ( 3. ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a search warrant cannot be issued against the accused. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi ( AIR 1965 SC 1251 ). In that case their Lordships held that even though the language of section 94 is general it is not applicable to an accused person. In arriving at this conclusion their Lordships referred to sub clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India which lays down that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. ( 4. ) BUT there is a clear distinction between the provisions of section 94 and section 96 of the Code. Section 94 empowers the Court to issue summons to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it at the lime and place specified in the summons. ) BUT there is a clear distinction between the provisions of section 94 and section 96 of the Code. Section 94 empowers the Court to issue summons to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it at the lime and place specified in the summons. If a summons is issued to an accused person under this section to produce a document or thing, it would certainly amount to testimonial compulsion and offend Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, if the document or thing have furnished evidence against the accused, But under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no direction to the accused to produce a document or thing. . Under the said section the Court by issuing a search warrant merely authorises the officer to whom warrant is addressed to make a search for certain article in a specified place or area and to produce it if it is found there. There being no direction to the accused to produce any document or thing, no question of testimonial compulsion arises in such a case. In fact by issuing a search warrant under section 96 the Court empowers a police officer to take a search which he would be otherwise competent during investigation under section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In M. P. Sharma and others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and others ( AIR 1954 SC 300 .) their lordships held that the searches made in pursuance of search warrant issued under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental right under Article 20 (3) of the constitution. ( 5. ) IN the instant case an offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal code has already been registered against the applicant in respect of the bus. The Court is, therefore, justified in seeking production of the bus by issuing search warrant for the same under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the applicant was at pains to point out that he was the owner of the bus but it is not necessary to go into the merits of the claim of the applicant to the bus at this stage. The learned counsel for the applicant was at pains to point out that he was the owner of the bus but it is not necessary to go into the merits of the claim of the applicant to the bus at this stage. This would be matter for the magistrate to enquire into while dealing with the complaint on merits. Since it appears that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to issue a search warrant there is no justification for interference in revision. If and when the bus is produced it would be open to the Magistrate to consider whether it should be allowed to remain in the possession of the applicant on his executing a proper Supraduama and undertaking to produce it before the Court whenever required to do so for the purpose of the case. ( 6. ) THE petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.