https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97780 Article 20(3) protects a company against self-incrimination where the constitutional context does not require exclusion of corporate persons. Reading "person" with Article 367 and the General Clauses Act, the Bombay High Court reasoned that compulsion to produce incriminating documents amounts to testimonial compulsion. A summons under Section 94 CrPC directing company officers to produce the company's own documents would, in substance, compel the company itself. On that basis, the summonses were treated as invalid and liable to be withdrawn. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:49:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97780 Article 20(3) protects a company against self-incrimination where the constitutional context does not require exclusion of corporate persons. Reading "person" with Article 367 and the General Clauses Act, the Bombay High Court reasoned that compulsion to produce incriminating documents amounts to testimonial compulsion. A summons under Section 94 CrPC directing company officers to produce the company's own documents would, in substance, compel the company itself. On that basis, the summonses were treated as invalid and liable to be withdrawn. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97780