[Self-Incrimination] Company Cannot Seek Protection Under Article 20(3) Of Constitution Without Satisfying Its Ingredients: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a company cannot refuse to produce a summoned document by seeking protection of Article 20(3) of the constitution, without satisfying its ingredients.Article 20(3) ensures that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This means that an individual cannot be forced to provide evidence or testimony that may incriminate themselves.Justice N.S Shekhawat explained that, “considering the Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the protection against self incrimination would come to the rescue of a person only when these three ingredients are satisfied, (a) accusation of an offence against such person (b) compulsion to provide evidence and (c) giving out self incriminating material, relating to accusations levelled against him, either in the form of oral testimony or in the form of a statement recorded or in the form of document produced.”The Court added that protection that is afforded under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is against the expression of opinion or incriminating material from the accused under compulsion.In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner and his co-accused were never compelled to produce any document nor were called upon to make any statement, which could inculpate anyone of them. Only the record keeper of the Company was required to produce certain documents, which could throw light on the controversy involved in the present case and could help the trial Court in adjudication of the issues involved in the complaint, it added.The Court opined that none of the accused could be permitted to raise such a plea of the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.These observations were made while hearing the plea challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate, whereby, the application of the respondent for summoning the concerned clerk of the company LSE Securities Limited was allowed and he had been summoned alongwith the record of proxies. A further prayer has been made to quash the impugned order, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner claiming privilege to the record has also been dismissed.After examining the submissions, the Court rejected the submission that the the summoned record was of sensitive nature and it included the signatures of various members of the company, who held huge deposits in the various banks as well as the company. They were sub-brokers of the Company and their signatures could not be disclosed without their consent.The judge also rejected the contention that the petitioner and his co- accused had taken the objections of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which provided that no accused could be compelled to be a witness against himself.Justice Shekhawat highlighted that, “the trial Court has only directed the concerned clerk of the LSE Securities Limited, Ludhiana to come present as a witness alongwith the record of proxies as well as the resolution of companies given for the election of directors held on 15.09.2012, total list of voters, list of casted votes, list of polling agents, counting agents, list of candidates and results and their record and also the record of ballot papers alongwith original record of signatures of voter.”The judge pointed that the record keeper of LSE Securities Limited is not an accused in the present case. “Moreover, the Court had not directed any of the accused to produce any document and the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misplaced,” added the Court.In the light of the above, the Court rejected the plea.Title: LSE Securities Ltd v. Jaswinder Singh KapoorMr. Atul Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the respondent.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 20Click here to read/download the order

[Self-Incrimination] Company Cannot Seek Protection Under Article 20(3) Of Constitution Without Satisfying Its Ingredients: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

[Self-Incrimination] Company Cannot Seek Protection Under Article 20(3) Of Constitution Without Satisfying Its Ingredients: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers