Judgment :- 1. This criminal original petition is filed against the order made in Crl.R.P.No. 15 of 2010 confirming the order made in Crl.M.P.No.8751 of 2005. 2. The petitioner herein is arrayed as the first accused in Cr.No.17 of 2002 culminating into C.C. No. 451 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. There are totally six accused involved in the present case. The FIR was filed for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Whereas, the charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 406, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 r/w. 34 IPC. The main act alleged against the accused is in connection with land grabbing on the strength of forged document. The accused totally deny any act of forgery. Inspite of the same, they face trial. Pending main case, the complainant State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur came forward with Crl.M.P.Nos.8749 to 8752 of 2005 for various reliefs. The reliefs sought for in those Crl.M.P.s are (i) to direct the Sub Registrar, District Registrar Office, Thanjavur to take photocopy of the will dated 25.02.2002 registered as document No.17/2002 and to submit the negative and positive (ii) to direct the sub Registrar, to produce and submit registration fee receipt book in respect of Division No. 4875 relating to the period between 20.2.2002 and 25.2.2002 comprising receipt No. A994469 and other receipts (iii) to direct the first accused to submit the original will which is in custody and (iv) to obtain handwriting expert opinion in respect of disputed signature of RR. Govindarajan in receipt No. A994469 and his admitted signatures in the documents submitted in the court. 3. The relief sought for in all those applications are seriously opposed by the accused. The trial court disposed of all the applications by separate order dated 11.01.2010. As far as the relief sought for in Crl.M.P.No. 8751 of 2005 is concerned, the same was disposed of by directing the complainant to take steps to obtain the copies of the Will in question from the Government departments, with further direction issued to A1 to appear before the investigating officer as and when required to explain the actual status of the original will. 4. Aggrieved against the order so made in Crl.M.P.No. 8751 of 2005 the first accused preferred Crl.R.P.No. 15 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Court, Thanjavur. 4. Aggrieved against the order so made in Crl.M.P.No. 8751 of 2005 the first accused preferred Crl.R.P.No. 15 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Court, Thanjavur. While so, the investigation officer has again approached the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court by way of representation dated 05.04.2010 for directing the first accused to produce the original Will before the Judicial Magistrate Court concerned. Thereafter, the criminal revision petition was filed before the Additional sessions Court on 08.04.2010. During the pendency of criminal revision petition before revisional authority, the concerned Judicial Magistrate court disposed of the representation by order dated 13.09.2010, thereby directing first accused to submit the original Will before the Investigation Officer, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur, in compliance with the order dated 11.01.2010 in Crl.M.P.No. 8751 of 2005 failing which to proceed against him in accordance with law. However, the same was not brought to the notice of the criminal revision court by the investigating officer and the criminal revision petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that there is no direction issued to the first accused in the impugned order to submit the original Will either before the Court or before the concerned investigating officer. Aggrieved against the same, the accused has come forward with the present Crl.O.P. before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would seriously question the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the power under Section 91 to issue any direction to produce any incriminating material cannot be exercised against the accused and the same is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 6. Whereas, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would question the very maintainability of this criminal original petition, which according to him, is construed to be second revision and the same is barred under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 8. Regarding the maintainability of this Crl.O.P. the same is directly dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments reported in (i) 1997 SCC (Crl) 544 Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another; and (ii) 2009 (2) CTC 242 Shakuntala Devi and others V. Chamru Mahto and another. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 8. Regarding the maintainability of this Crl.O.P. the same is directly dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments reported in (i) 1997 SCC (Crl) 544 Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another; and (ii) 2009 (2) CTC 242 Shakuntala Devi and others V. Chamru Mahto and another. The Supreme Court has in both the authorities cited above, categorically held that while the second revision before High Court, after dismissal of first one by the sessions court, is barred under Section 397(3) of the code, the inherent power of the High Court, under Section 482 is still available and the same is not subject to any prohibition under Section 397(3) of the code and the High Court is empowered to entertain petition under Section 482 to quash the order passed by the revisional authority, as such, the objection regarding the maintainability of this Crl.O.P. is devoid of any merit and is hence rejected. 9. On merits, the relief sought for herein is to set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court/Special Court under EC Act in criminal revision petition confirming the order made in Crl.M.P.8751 of 2005 thereby issuing direction under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to produce certain documents in question. It is not in dispute that the Magistrate has in his order dated 11.01.2010 not issued any specific direction to the petitioner/A1 to produce the original Will in question. The petition filed by the complainant State in Crl.M.P.No. 8751 of 2005 seeking direction to the accused to produce the original Will in question was disposed of, by directing the complainant State to obtain the copies of the same from the Government department concerned, where the original was already produced and to produce the same before the court concerned with further direction issued to the accused to appear and answer the investigating officer regarding the actual status of original Will in question. That means the relief sought for by the complainant State for specific direction against the accused to produce certain documents in question is negatived by the Trial Court. If that is so, the remedy available to the complainant State is only to challenge the correctness of the order by way of revision. That means the relief sought for by the complainant State for specific direction against the accused to produce certain documents in question is negatived by the Trial Court. If that is so, the remedy available to the complainant State is only to challenge the correctness of the order by way of revision. The complainant State not only omitted to do so, but also approached the same trial court for the same relief not by way of any petition, but by way of representation. The representation was disposed of by order dated 13.09.2010 that too during the pendency of criminal revision filed by the accused against the original order dated 11.01.2010. The representation was dispose of by directing the petitioner/A1 to produce the original Will before the Court concerned to be in turn forwarded to the investigating officer. One such direction is issued in the representation given by the investigating officer on the impression that the order dated 11.01.2010 contains a direction to that effect that the accused shall produce the original Will in question before the investigating officer and the same shall be produced to the court instead of Investigating officer. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 not only the order dated 11.01.2010 but also direction issued on 13.09.2010 and the manner in which the direction issued on 13.09.2010 are against the procedure laid down under law and also against the settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 10. As already referred to, the direction sought for by way of representation directly by the investigating officer through learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and without reference to Government Advocate (Crl.side) is totally unknown to law. It is quite a strange course to be resorted to by the investigating officer. The trial court has also committed very serious and glaring error in entertaining such representation and in passing direction amounting to direction under Section 91 Cr.P.C. that too after rejection of such prayer by the same Trial Court in the regular Crl.M.P.No. 8751 of 2005 and also during the pendency of criminal revision against the order dated 11.01.2010. The direction dated 13.09.2010, the copy of which is enclosed in the typed set of papers, does not disclose as to whether the same is passed after giving notice to the accused and after giving him opportunity of being heard. The direction dated 13.09.2010, the copy of which is enclosed in the typed set of papers, does not disclose as to whether the same is passed after giving notice to the accused and after giving him opportunity of being heard. Further, the same is also not brought to the notice of the revisional authority. As a result, the revisional authority/Additional Sessions Court/Special Court EC Act cases disposed of the revision without any occasion to deal with the correctness of the direction issued on 13.09.2010. 11. In my considered view, this court is empowered to deal with the same, by exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while dealing with the correctness of other order dated 11.01.2010 as confirmed by the revisional authority. Curiously, the revisional authority dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that there is no direction issued to the accused to produce the original will. In my considered view, the order is obtained without disclosing all the material factors before the revisional authority. The direction issued by the learned Magistrate on 13.09.2010 on the representation of the concerned investigating officer dated 05.04.2010 and the order of the revisional authority dated 27.5.2011 are on this score alone liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, the direction issued to the accused in the order dated 11.01.2010 and 13.09.2010 as confirmed by the revisional authority are admittedly under Section 91 Cr.P.C. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the powers under Section 91 cannot be exercised against the accused as the same is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It is held so by our High Court in the judgment reported in 1997 (III) CTC 196 K. Senthamarai and another v. State by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai and another. Our High Court has after analyzing the principles and applicability of Section 91(2) Cr.P.C. to the accused, in the light of earlier judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, our High Court and other High Courts, was pleased to conclude that Section 91 Cr.P.C. would not include accused persons and he cannot be compelled to disclose any documents which are incriminatory and based on has knowledge and the guarantee under Article 20(3) would extend to any compulsory process for production of evidentiary documents which are likely to support the prosecution against the accused. The learned single judge has followed the Apex Court judgments reported in AIR 1954 SC 300 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra; AIR 1965 SC 1251 (five Judges bench) State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal and AIR 1980 SC 185 V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan. Our High Court, by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, was pleased to reiterate the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shyamlal Mohanlal case as resettled in Kuttan Pillai case that summons to produce a thing or document as contemplated under Section 91(1) cannot be issued to a person accused of an offence calling upon him to produce document or thing considered necessary or desirable for the purpose of an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the code of Cr.P.C. Applying the same to the facts of the present case, the direction issued to the petitioner to attend and to produce the documents in his custody and to attend and to answer the actual status of document in question, falls under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C. and the same is against law and is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and is hence liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the impugned order dated 11.01.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No. 8751 of 2005 passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the revisional authority by order dated 27.05.2011 made in Crl.R.P.No. 15 of 2010 and the direction dated 13.09.2010 made in the representation of the investigating officer dated 05.04.2010 in Crl.M.P.8751/2005 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate stand quashed and this criminal original petition is accordingly disposed of.