https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169265 The court held that the petitioner was indeed "a person accused of an offence" under Article 20(3) of the Constitution upon the lodging of the FIR. The court clarified that the petitioner could not refuse to provide information that did not tend to incriminate him. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Deputy Director and answer questions that do not incriminate him. The petition was partially allowed, declaring the petitioner as accused under Article 20(3) but requiring compliance with non-incriminatory information requests. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:24:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169265 The court held that the petitioner was indeed "a person accused of an offence" under Article 20(3) of the Constitution upon the lodging of the FIR. The court clarified that the petitioner could not refuse to provide information that did not tend to incriminate him. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Deputy Director and answer questions that do not incriminate him. The petition was partially allowed, declaring the petitioner as accused under Article 20(3) but requiring compliance with non-incriminatory information requests. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169265