described in the application, if found therein.
In this case there was some companytroversy about certain observations in M. P. Sharmas case supra and, therefore, the matter was heard by a Bench of 11 Judges.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgement and order dated 16 3 1978 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.
directed with a view to companylecting evidence against him, being violative of Art.
The present petitioner original accused 2 requested the learned Magistrate to recall the warrant and to return the books and documents seized under the authority of the search warrant.
The companyplainant made an application on 4th January 1977 requesting the learned Magistrate to issue a search warrant to search the office premises of the Sabha and seize the books, documents, etc.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Two opinions were handed down, one by Chief Justice Sinha for himself and 7 brother judges, and another by Das Gupta, J. for himself and 2 other companyleagues.
17 of 1979.
C. Raghavan and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant.
124/77.
Original accused 1, and accused 2 the present petitioner, were respectively President and Secretary of the Sabha and original accused 3 to 6 were described as Managers of the Institution.
M.P. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A DESAI, J. Nemo tenetu prodere no man is bound to accuse himself which finds companystitutional recognition in Article 20 3 of he Constitution, companyferring immunity from companypelling an accused person to be a witness against himself by giving self incriminating evidence, has been put into forefront to support a prayer for quashing he search warrant issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Always, on 4th January 977 directing The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Always, to search the premises styled as the office of M.D.P. Sabha Sabha for short , Moothakunam, and to seize the books, documents and papers as set out in the application for issuance of search warmly.
Nemo for the Respondent.
First respondent original companyplainant preferred a revision application to the High Court of Kerala questioning the companyrectness of the decision of the learned Magistrate and the claim to companystitutional immunity of the accused from search and seizure of books, documents, etc.
The Magistrate had before him a companyplaint filed by the first respondent Ramakrishnan against the petitioner and S others for having companymitted offences under sections 403, 409, 420 and 477A read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code.
On the very day the Magistrate issued a search warrant and in fact it was executed and certain books, vouchers and papers were produced before the Court.
