ORDER: An interesting question arises for consideration in this petition. For understanding the same, short facts are to be narrated. Petitioner filed a private complaint against two persons, arraying them as accused. First person was described in the complaint as the person who published bit notice printed in Akshara Printers, Kara, Kodungallur Taluk. The printer of Akshara Printers, 2nd respondent herein was described as second accused in the complaint. Offence alleged against them was under Sec.500 , read with Sec.34, I.P.C. That complaint was filed on 13.1.1987. Along with the complaint he filed Criminal M.P.No. 109 of 1987 praying for issue of summons to 2nd respondent herein for production of manuscript of the publication. Second respondent in pursuance to the notice issued by the Court produced the manuscript before Court. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 16.5.1987. After considering the complaint and sworn statement when the Court thought it proper to proceed against the accused for offences under Sec.500 , I.P.C, read with Sec.34, I.P.C. summons were issued to the accused. When the case came up for trial, the complainant while giving evidence as P.W.1 wanted to mark the manuscript produced by 2nd respondent as evidence in the case. Marking of that manuscript was objected to on the ground that the said document which was compelled to be produced by 2nd respondent cannot be made use of against him and in case it is so done it will contravene his rights underArt.20(3) of the Constitution. This objection was found favour with the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, he disallowed the prayer of the petitioner to mark that document in evidence. That order is under challenge. 2. In State of Bombay v. KathiKalu State of Bombay v. KathiKalu A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1808 the Supreme Court observed: “It is well established that CI.(3) of Art.20 is directed against self-incrimination by an accused person. Self-incrimination must mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the person giving the information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in Court which may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge.” In the instant case, 2nd accused was directed to produce the manuscript which was sent to him for printing defamatory news item. That document was not prepared by 2nd accused. That document was not prepared by 2nd accused. It contains no matter which was in his personal information or knowledge. He was having the custody of that document which was written by another. Production of that document and its use in the proceedings cannot come within the mischief of Art.20(3) of the Constitution. For Art.20(3) to come into play two facts have to be established. Firstly, the individual concerned should be a person accused of an offence and secondly, he must be compelled to be a witness against himself. If only one of these facts, and not the other, is established, the requirements of Art.20(3) will not be fulfilled. 3. At the time when the manuscript was produced before Court, was second respondent, an accused before Court? In the complaint filed on 13.1.1987, 2nd respondent was described as the 2nd accused. But can he be taken as a person accused in the case? In a private complaint filed before Court the Magistrate is bound to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present. He may postpone the issue of process against the accused and enquire into the cases himself for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint as contemplated by Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After such an enquiry, if the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he should dismiss the complaint as provided by Sec.203 of the Code. If in the opinion of the Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial, then summons or warrant as the case maybe, should be issued to the accused. Only when such summons or warrant is issued to the accused, can the respondent in the complaint be described as an accused. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in S.S. Khanna v. Chief Secretary, Patna S.S. Khanna v. Chief Secretary, Patna A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 595. Their Lordships observed: “An enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code is not in the nature of a trial for there can be in law only one trial in respect of any offence and that a trial can commence only after process is issued to the accused. The said proceedings are not strictly proceedings between the complainant and the accused. Their Lordships observed: “An enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code is not in the nature of a trial for there can be in law only one trial in respect of any offence and that a trial can commence only after process is issued to the accused. The said proceedings are not strictly proceedings between the complainant and the accused. A person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until it is decided to issue process against him. Even if he participates in the proceedings under Sec.202 of the Code, he does so not as an accused but as a member of the public. The object of the inquiry under Sec.202 is the ascertainment of the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for the issue of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. The section does not require any adjudication to be made about the guilt or otherwise of the person against whom the complaint is preferred. Such a person cannot even be legally called to participate in the proceedings under Sec.202 of the Code”. [Emphasis added] 4. When summons under Sec.91 of the Code was issued on Crl.M.P. No. 109 of 1987 2nd respondent was not an accused in any case. In pursuance to that summons he produced the manuscript which was the basis for the pinted matter. After considering the sworn statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate thought it proper to issue summons to the accused. When such summons was issued to 2nd respondent he became 2nd accused. On this set of facts, it is to be noted that the document was produced by 2nd respondent when he was not an accused in the case. The document produced by him was not based on his personal knowledge or information. Hence he cannot object to the marking of that document invoking the provisions of Art.20(3) of the Constitution. 5. In view of what has been stated above, I hold that 2nd respondent is not entitled to protection of Art.20(3) of the Constitution as claimed by him. The learned Magistrate was clearly in error in refusing to mark the document in evidence. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is quashed. 5. In view of what has been stated above, I hold that 2nd respondent is not entitled to protection of Art.20(3) of the Constitution as claimed by him. The learned Magistrate was clearly in error in refusing to mark the document in evidence. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is quashed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of C.C. No. 140 of 1987 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 6. The Criminal M.C. is disposed of in the above terms. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.