1960 (12) TMI 43 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of summonses issued to company's officers for production of documents violating protection against self-incrimination.
2. Interpretation of article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding testimonial compulsion.
3. Applicability of protection against self-incrimination to companies.
4. Comparison with American legal principles.
5. Decision on the validity of summonses and recommendation for withdrawal.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to criminal references arising from cases filed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation against a company for alleged evasion of octroi dues. The company objected to summonses issued to its officers for the production of documents, citing violation of protection against self-incrimination guaranteed by article 20(3) of the Constitution.

2. The Court deliberated on the meaning of "to be a witness" under article 20(3), emphasizing that producing documents in a criminal case constitutes a testimonial act. It concluded that compelling an accused person to produce potentially incriminating documents violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

3. The Court addressed the argument that protection under article 20(3) is not extended to companies, asserting that the term "person" in the Constitution includes companies as per the General Clauses Act. It reasoned that companies, like natural individuals, can furnish evidence and are capable of self-incrimination through documentary evidence.

4. The judgment compared American legal precedents where corporate bodies were denied protection against self-incrimination, highlighting the rationale behind such decisions. However, the Court distinguished Indian law from American principles, noting that Indian legal provisions allow for search and seizure of documents even if a company refuses to produce them.

5. Ultimately, the Court accepted the references and directed the withdrawal of summonses issued to the company's officers, affirming that the protection against self-incrimination applies to companies as much as to natural individuals. The decision did not preclude lawful actions for search and seizure of the required documents in accordance with legal provisions.