https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97780 The Court ruled in favor of the company, determining that compelling the accused to produce potentially incriminating documents violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under article 20(3). It clarified that this protection extends to companies as well, as the term "person" includes corporate entities. The Court distinguished Indian law from American legal principles and recommended the withdrawal of summonses issued to the company's officers while allowing lawful search and seizure of documents as per legal provisions. 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 The Court ruled in favor of the company, determining that compelling the accused to produce potentially incriminating documents violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under article 20(3). It clarified that this protection extends to companies as well, as the term "person" includes corporate entities. The Court distinguished Indian law from American legal principles and recommended the withdrawal of summonses issued to the company's officers while allowing lawful search and seizure of documents as per legal provisions. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Dec 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97780