Anil Talwar v/s Caratlane & others

IN THE COURT OF HARJOT SINGH GILL PCS

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS CHANDIGARH

Anil Talwar

…..Complainant

VERSUS

Caratlane & others

…..Accused

Application of witness and co-accused ‘Synergy media

entertainment Ltd’for not giving evidence as per the

provisions of article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Present: Sh Gagandeep Goel Adv, Counsel for applicant

Sh R.S.Guron Adv, Counsel for complainant

Order:

This order of mine shall decide and dispose of the application filed by the

applicant for not giving evidence as per the provision of article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India.

2. As per the application, the complaint has been filed by the complainant against

the accused and is at the stage of preliminary evidence and in the preliminary

evidence the complainant wants to summon the record in possession of the

applicant who is also allegedly co-accused in the present case. But as per the

provisions under article 20(3) of the Constitution of India the accused cannot be

forced to give evidence against himself. It is a fundamental right of the accused

1
Anil Talwar v/s Caratlane & others

guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Hence it is prayed that the application be

allowed and the applicant should be exonerated from appearing as a witness.

3. Reply to the application was filed by the complainant in which the

complainant has replied that the record pertaining to the imputation i.e.

advertisement dated 13/07/2015 carried out on F.M.94.3 radio is required to be

preserved and brought on record on case file as provided under section 91 of the

criminal procedure code and as such the production of such record does not in any

way infringe article 20(3) of the Constitution of India i.e the fundamental right of

the accused. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the application.

4. Heard. File perused. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, I am of

the considered view that the application filed by the applicant is premature since

applicant has not been summoned as accused at this stage. Therefore article 20(3)

of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the applicant at this stage.

Moreover even for the sake of argument such record cannot be taken as self-

incriminating evidence, rather it is only the record of 94.3 FM and involves alleged

imputation which according to the complainant was heard by the public at large.

Furthermore as per section 91 of the criminal procedure code the record which is

sought by the complainant which is in the shape of alleged imputation which is in

the possession of the applicant, will be necessary to decide the present case and the

prayer of the complainant to bring such alleged imputation on record of this file

cannot be rejected since it is the moot question involved in the present case.

Further, complainant does not want to record any oral statement of the applicant

rather only wants such document/record to come on record of this case. Hence it is

a considered view of this court that application filed by the applicant is meritless

and therefore the application stands dismissed. The complainant is at liberty to

summon the record in question from the office of the applicant through some

2
Anil Talwar v/s Caratlane & others

representative of the applicant. Application stands disposed of. Adjourned to

07.05.2018 for preliminary evidence of the complainant.

Pronounced in open court Harjot Singh Gill

Dated 10-04-2018 Judicial Magistrate 1st class

Chandigarh