N. K. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) BY this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , one of the accused persons has challenged the orders dated 20. 5. 94 and 28. 6. 94 passed in C. R. Case No. 203/94 by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. ( 2 ) BY order dated 20. 5. 94, the Ld. Magistrate, inter alia, directed issuance of notice upon the accused Dipak Sikdar, Secretary of the association, who is the present revisionist, to produce the documents as stated in the petition within seven days from the date of receipt of the summons. From the order dated 28. 6. 94 it appears that the accused persons made an application for recalling the notice as was directed to serve by order dated 20. 5. 84 upon the revisionist u/s. 91 of the Cr. P. C. and by the said order, the Ld. Magistrate rejected the petition and directed for production of the documents by accused No. 2, meaning the present revisionist and also for appearance of all the accused persons. Those two orders are the subject matters in this revision. ( 3 ) THE fact leading to this revision is that the present revisionist was the Secretary of Jalpaiguri-Duars Mini-bus Association. One Ajit Kr. Roy, on 19th May, 1994 made a petition of complaint before the Ld. C. J. M. Jalpaiguri, against the accused persons including the present revisionist who figured as accused No. 2 in the petition of complaint, alleging offence u/s. 403/409/406 of the I. P. C. In the petition of complaint it has been alleged that on 31st March, 1994, the said accused No. 2, the petitioner herein, submitted an audited report without any signature of the treasurer and the report shows expenditure of huge amount which are fictitious expenses such as honorarium, loan, subscription, telephone bill furniture etc. from the period 1. 1. 93 to 31. 12. 1993. On that petition of complaint the Ld. C. J. M. took cognizance, directed issuance of summons against the accused persons u/s. 405/403/409 of the I. P. C. On 19th may, 1994, the said Ajit Kr. Roy made another prayer by filing another application u/s. 91 of the Cr. P. C. for direction for production of the documents of the said Association. C. J. M. took cognizance, directed issuance of summons against the accused persons u/s. 405/403/409 of the I. P. C. On 19th may, 1994, the said Ajit Kr. Roy made another prayer by filing another application u/s. 91 of the Cr. P. C. for direction for production of the documents of the said Association. Accordingly, notice was issued upon accused No. 2, directing production of documents within 7 days from the date of receipt of the summons. This Court has been informed by the Ld. Advocate for the O. P. No. 2, Ajit Kr. Roy, that the documents directed to be produced are Ledger, Cash-book, Audit report, memorandum of association etc. which are the documents of the association. As has been pointed out that by order dated 26. 5. 1994, the Ld. C. J. M. made that direction for production of the said documents by accused No. 2 by issuing notice u/s. 91 of the Cr. P. C. On 28th June, 1994, the accused persons including the present revisionist, by filling an application prayed for recalling the notice issued u/s. 91 of the Cr. P. C. on the ground that by that notice and direction, the present revisionist, the accused No. 2 shall be compelled to be witness against him as contemplated under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) IN support of the submission before the Ld. Magistrate, the accused persons relied on a decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1251 . That argument did not find favour with the Ld. Magistrate and the Ld. Magistrate by his order dated 28. 6. 94 rejected that application and refused the prayer of the accused persons for recalling the notice issued upon O. P. No. 2 u/s. 91 of the Cr. P. C. directing production of the documents as mentioned earlier. On the above facts, the learned Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Himangsu De appearing with Mr. S. S. Mahapatra, made the same contention and relied on the self-same decision as indicated earlier, to wit State of Gujarat (supra ). The Ld. Advocate for the O. P. No. 2 Mr. P. C. directing production of the documents as mentioned earlier. On the above facts, the learned Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Himangsu De appearing with Mr. S. S. Mahapatra, made the same contention and relied on the self-same decision as indicated earlier, to wit State of Gujarat (supra ). The Ld. Advocate for the O. P. No. 2 Mr. Biplab Mitra, on the other hand contended that direction upon an accused who has another identity as the Secretary of an Association for production of the documents of the association, will no amount to compulsion to be an witness against himself regarding an offence alleged against him and in that Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India will not be apply in this case. In support of his submission Mr. Mitra relied on another Supreme Court decision in the case of V. S. Kuttam Pillai v. Ramakrishnan and. Anr. reported in AIR 1980 SC 196. Mr. Mitra further contended that in that decision the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the case of State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal (supra) and in ultimate analysis after review of the Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held on the basis of the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, (1962)3 SCR 10 , that the accused may have documentary evidence in his possession which may throw some light on the controversy and if it is a document which is not his statement conveying his personal knowledge relating to the charge against him, he may be called upon to produce it. Proceeding further it was observed that Article 20 (3) would be no bar to the summons being issued to a person accused of an offence to produce a thing or document except in the circumstances hereinabove mentioned. In the ultimate analysis of paragraph 15 of that Judgment, the Apex Court inter alia, observed as under :"it was, however, urged that section 93 (1) (c) must be read in the contest of section 93 (1) (b) and it would mean that where documents are known to be at a certain place and in possession of certain person any general search warrant as contemplated by section 93 (1) (c) will have to be ruled out because in such a situation, Sec. 93 (1) (a) alone would be attracted. Section 93 (1) (b) comprehends a situation where the court issues a search warrant in respect of a document or a thing to be recovered from a certain place but it is not known to the court whether that document or thing is in possession of any particular person. Under clause (b) there is a definite allegation to recover certain document or thing from a certain specific place but the court is unware of the fact whether that document or thing or the place is in possession of a particular person. Section 93 (1) (c) comprehends a situation where a search warrant can be issued as the court is unware of not only the person but even the place where the documents may be found and that a general search is necessary. One cannot, therefore, cut down the power of the court u/s. 93 (1) (c) by importing into it some of the requirements of section 93 (1) (b ). No cannon of construction would permit such an erosion of power of the court to issue a general search warrant. It also comprehends not merely a general search but even an inspection meaning search thereby inspection of a place and a general search thereof and seizure of documents or things which the court considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of an investigation, inquiry trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court accordingly sustained the general search warrant in this case under sec. 93 (1) (c ). " ( 5 ) THE Apex court in paragraph 17 of that decision further observed. "the place will be in possession of the institution. The office bearers of the Sabha are accused of an offence. Documents and books of accounts of the institution ate required for the purpose of the trial against the office-bearers of the institution. The office premises could not be said to be in possession of any individual accused but stric to sense it would be in possession of the institution, and are lying in the office of the institution. A search of such a public place under the authority of a general search warrant can easily be sustained u/s. 93 (1) (c ). If the order of the Ld. Magistrate is construed to mean this there is no illegality committed in issuing a search warrant. A search of such a public place under the authority of a general search warrant can easily be sustained u/s. 93 (1) (c ). If the order of the Ld. Magistrate is construed to mean this there is no illegality committed in issuing a search warrant. Of course, issuance of a search warrant is a serious matter and it would be advisable not to dispose of an application for search warrant in a mechanical way by a laconic order. Issuance of search warrant being in the discretion of the Magistrate it would be reasonable to expect of the Magistrate to give reason which swayed his discretion in favour of granting the request. A clear application of mind by the Ld. Magistrate must be discernible in the order granting the search warrant. " ( 6 ) IN view of the observation as pointed out earlier of the Apex Court gives a clear indication that production of certain documents which are in possession of the association and in a place which is the office of the association will not impede the power of the learned Magistrate to order search warrant under section 93 (1) (c ). But in the instant case the Ld. magistrate instead of directing search warrant under section 93 (1) (c) directed office bearer who is an accused for production of the documents of the association. Those are the documents of the association and not the personal documents of the accused. Those are the office records and did not contain the statement of the accused. ( 7 ) SO, in my view, the impediment under Act. 20 (3) of the Constitution of India will not apply in this case. ( 8 ) IN such circumstances, I do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the Ld. Magistrate. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 9 ) LET a copy of this order be sent down to the court of the Ld. C. J. M. , Jalpaiguri, as expeditiously as possible. Application dismissed.