Article 20, Cl. (3) of the Constitution says “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. This provision engrafts an exception to the general rule of testimonial compulsion. In In re, Central Calcutta Bank Ltd., (S) AIR 1957 Cal 520: 61 Cal WN 709, Justice P. B. Mukharji observes:— ‘‘Testimonial compulsion is the very foundation of the law of evidence for without such compulsion every refusal to give evidence will render administration of justice impossible. Testimonial compulsion is the general rule. The constitutional prohibition of self-incriminating evidence is an exception, designed to defend justice and insure the accused against self-created criminal traps.” Thus in the case of persons accused of offences, the Constitution affords protection by prohibiting testimonial compulsion. In M. P. Sarma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300: 1954 Cri LJ 865, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if sea ....