BIMAL KANTI GHOSH Vs. M CHANDRASEKHAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dt. 22-9-1983 passed by the learned Magistrate in a complaint case bearing I. C. C. No. 32 of 1980, whereunder the learned Magistrate directed issuance of summons to the petitioner for production of documents in possession of the petitioner.

(2.) The complainant and the petitioners are the two Directors of a private limited Company. The Company was engaged with the raising work of graphite in Athamalik in the district of Dhenkanal and china-clay in Jhankarpalli in the district of Sambalpur. The petitioner had taken on lease some mines both at Athmalik and at Jhankarpalli. The Company had a contract with the petitioner to purchase the minerals raised from petitioner's mines. A complaint was filed purporting to be one under S. 221 of the Companies Act in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, who was of the view that no prima facie case existed against the petitioner and further he was of the opinion that S. 621 of the Companies Act would be a bar to take cognisance and accordingly the said complaint case was dismissed. Against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, a revision was carried to the Sessions Judge who directed the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under S. 202 of the Cr. P. C. and in course of the said inquiry the complainant produced a Resolution dt. 17-12-1979 passed by the Board of Directors of the Company wherein the complainant appears to have been authorised by the Board to file the complaint against the petitioner. On 8-5-1980, the complainant filed an application for issue of a search warrant to get some documents which was ultimately rejected by order dt. 12-1-1983 and the complainant was directed to produce his witnesses in support of the charge. The complainant filed another application for selfsame relief which was also rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dt. 13-4-1983. Another application again was filed on 20-8-1983 for the self-same purpose and this application has been allowed by the impugned order dt. 22-9-1983. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the scope and effect of the provisions in Ss. 91 and 93 of the Cr. P. C. and ultimately passed the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. Pasayat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is fundamental of criminal jurisprudence that an accused should not be compelled to incriminate himself and this principle has been well recognised both under the Cr. P. C. as well as under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. In that view of the matter, even though the language of S. 93 of the Cr. P.C. is rather wide, yet it would not bring within its sweep any compulsion on the accused to produce documents in his possession which may incriminate himself. In this connection, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 1251.