Search and seizure under general warrant does not amount to compelled self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

A lawful search and seizure under Section 93(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, by itself, infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution, because the protection against self-incrimination applies to compelled testimonial disclosure, not to passive submission to a search conducted under lawful authority. The provision also permits a general search where the court considers search or inspection necessary for the purposes of the proceeding. On the stated facts, the warrant for the premises of an institution was treated as sustainable under Section 93(1)(c), and the materials sought were not in the accused's personal custody in the relevant constitutional sense.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a search warrant issued under Section 93(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to search the premises of an accused's institution and seize books and documents violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the warrant could be sustained as a general search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) rather than under Section 93(1)(a) or Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a search warrant issued under Section 93(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to search the premises of an accused's institution and seize books and documents violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against himself by giving incriminating evidence. That protection does not extend to every collection of incriminating material. A search and seizure conducted under lawful authority, without requiring the accused to participate in the search or to make any statement, does not amount to compelled testimony. A passive submission to search is not compulsion to incriminate oneself.

Conclusion: The search warrant issued under Section 93(1)(c) does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the warrant could be sustained as a general search warrant under Section 93(1)(c) rather than under Section 93(1)(a) or Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 91 concerns summons for production of documents. Section 93(1)(a) is linked to a situation where a summons or requisition could have been issued but compliance is apprehended to be absent. Section 93(1)(b) applies where the document or thing is not known to be in the possession of any person. Section 93(1)(c) separately authorises a general search where the Court considers that the purposes of the proceeding will be served by search or inspection. On the facts, the documents were sought from the office premises of a public institution and were not in the personal custody of the accused in the sense relevant to Article 20(3). The warrant was therefore sustainable as a general search warrant.

Conclusion: The warrant was validly sustained under Section 93(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the search warrant failed, and the order sustaining the warrant was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A lawful search and seizure under Section 93(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not amount to compelled testimony within Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, because it collects evidence without requiring the accused to participate or make self-incriminating disclosure.

---