https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40412 Search and seizure of documents under a judicial warrant was treated as a lawful investigative measure, not a restriction that by itself infringes the right to property, because the interference is temporary and operates as a reasonable statutory regulation. The protection against self-incrimination was held to extend beyond oral evidence to compelled testimonial production of incriminating documents, but search and seizure were distinguished from compelled production on notice or summons. Because a search warrant does not require the accused to perform any testimonial act, searches conducted under judicial authorization were not treated as violating Article 20(3). The constitutional validity of such warrants was upheld. en-us Mon, 15 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40412 Search and seizure of documents under a judicial warrant was treated as a lawful investigative measure, not a restriction that by itself infringes the right to property, because the interference is temporary and operates as a reasonable statutory regulation. The protection against self-incrimination was held to extend beyond oral evidence to compelled testimonial production of incriminating documents, but search and seizure were distinguished from compelled production on notice or summons. Because a search warrant does not require the accused to perform any testimonial act, searches conducted under judicial authorization were not treated as violating Article 20(3). The constitutional validity of such warrants was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40412