DAMODAR V PANGREKAR Vs. RAMACHANDRAVASWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the scope of the doctrine of testimonial compulsion incorporated in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India has come up for consideration, and it arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) In connection with the alleged defalcations of the funds of the Hyderabad Khadi Samithi, two private complaints were filed by one Ramachandravaswani claiming to be Chief Accountant and also the President of the Employees Union of the said Samithi, before the Vlth City Magistrate, Hyderabad and they were taken on file as C.C. Nos. 1371 of 1970 and 1372 of 1970 for offences under section 408, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In C.C. No. 1371 of 1970 the accused were shown as Sri Swami Ramananda Thirtha, Damodar Pangrekar (present petitioner) and Ramakrishna Nanavati. As Sri Ramananda Thirtha died, the case was proceeded with against the remaining two. In C.C. No. 1372 of 1970 though the complaint was against six persons including the present petitioner (D.V. Pangrekar), cognizance of the complaint was taken only as against Ramakrishna Nanavati. Both the cases were being posted for trial together on the same days and summons were sought to be taken in both the cases against D.V. Pangrekar who was the Secretary of the Samithi for the production of certain records and to give evidence. As he was one of the accused in C.G. No.1371 of 1970, that petition was dismissed. But in C.C.No. 1372 of 1970, as the case was not taken on file against him, summons were issued. As against the issue of the said summons, the said D.V. Pangrekar filed a petition claiming protection under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, contending that summoning him as a witness in the case would, amount to testimonial compulsion and he should not be examined as a witness. This contention was rejected by the Vlth City Magistrate and it is against that order this revision has been filed.