( 1 ) PETITIONER before this Court is the 2nd accused in CC. 2992/72 on the file of the II City Magistrate, Mysore. Proceedings had been instituted against accused 1 and 2 under S. 67 of the Factories Act, 1948. While the case was pending, on the application made by the APP. under S. 94 Crpc. the learned Magistrate issued summons to the 2nd accused to produce certain documents which were in his custody. This order issuing summons to the 2nd accused, is challenged in this revision petition. ( 2 ) SRI V. N. Satyanarayana learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the learned Magistrate was not competent to issue such summons to the petitioner as the same is hit by sub-clause (3) of Art. 20 of the Constitution of India. Strong reliance ig placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra air. 1954 SC. 300. and on the decision of the Madras High Court in Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Asst. Labour Inspector, Karaikudi AIR. 1956 Mad. 165. in support of the said contention. The learned Counsel has also referred to the decision of the supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (3 ). ( 3 ) IN Sharma's Case (1) referred to above, their Lordships of the supreme Court have pointed out that guarantee under Art. 20 (3) would be available to an accused when any compulsory process is issued against him for production of any evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution case against him. ( 4 ) IN Swarnalingam C'hettiar's case (2) the Bench consisting of the chief Justice Rajamannar and Rajagopala Iyyangar, J. , have held that the guarantee under Art. 20 AIR. 1961 SC. 1808. would extend to any compulsory process for production of evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to support a prosecution against the accused. ( 5 ) IN Slate of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Chokshi (4) their Lordships have held that summons under S, 94 Cr. P. C. cannot be issued to an accused to produce documents which are likely to be used in evidence against him. ( 5 ) IN Slate of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Chokshi (4) their Lordships have held that summons under S, 94 Cr. P. C. cannot be issued to an accused to produce documents which are likely to be used in evidence against him. Their Lordships have pointed out that Art. 20 (3) has been construed by the Supreme Court in Kalu Oghad's case (3) referred to above to mean that an accused person cannot be compelled to disclose documents which are incriminatory and based on his knowledge. If S. 94 is construed to include an accused person, some unfortunate consequences would follow. Though the language of S. 94 is general, there are indications that the Legislature did not intend to include an accused person. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the decision in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal mohanlal Chokshi AIR. 1965 SC. 1251. referred to above that summons under S. 94 cannot be issued to an accused to produce documents which are incriminatory and may be used against him at the trial. It, therefore, follows that the order of the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the accused to produce documents which are likely to be incriminatory is illegal and has to be set aside. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the reasons mentioned above, I allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate issuing summons to the petitioner 2nd accused to produce documents. --- *** --- .