SALIMA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No.1 is the Head Mistress (retired) Madina Arabic School, Vijayapura and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Chairman and Secretary of Peer Jalal Bhukari Educational and Cultural Society (R), Vijayapura respectively. A private complaint has been lodged by the Assistant Teacher (retired) of the institution against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Ss. 177, 192, 196, 199, 405, 408, 418, 420, 424, 468 and 477-A read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The same was referred under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and the respondent No.1/Pllice have filed 'B' report on investigation. Against the 'B' report, the respondent No.2 filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate posted the matter on 7/12/2018 for the sworn statement of respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the petitioners to produce the records as stated in the said application. The Trial Court on application being made by respondent No.2, allowed the same and summons was issued to the petitioners to produce the documents.

(2.) Heard Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are accused persons in this case. If any order passed directing them to produce documents would certainly amounts to violation of right against self-incrimination. Article 20 sub-clause (3) of Constitution of India says 'No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself'. It is further submitted that the present petitioners are holding the educational institution in different capacity and there are certain allegations made against them and there are also number of litigations filed against them by respondent No.2. Such being the fact, the order passed by the Trial Court for production of documents certainly would affect their rights and they are having immunity of self-incrimination. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi,AIR 1965 SC 1251 (Shyamlal's case) and Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and others,(2009) 4 SCC 94.