JUDGMENT :

N.S. Shekhawat, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Ludhiana, whereby, the application of the respondent for summoning the concerned clerk of the LSE Securities Limited was allowed and he had been summoned alongwith the record of proxies. A further prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure P-6), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner claiming privilege to the record has also been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a company, which was incorporated on 07.01.2000 and is registered with Registrar of Companies. The company was incorporated with the main objective of carrying on business of stock broking and is a subsidiary of the Ludhiana Stock Exchange Limited. The AGM meeting of the petitioner company was held on 15.09.2012 and K.K.Puri and Naresh Sareen were appointed as Directors by the majority of voting. Subsequent to the meeting, on 25.01.2013, the respondent filed a complaint (Annexure P-2) against the petitioner, in which, the petitioner, i.e., the LSE Securities, has been arrayed as an accused as well as K.K.Puri and Naresh Sareen and other officers of the company were also nominated as accused. The main allegations in the complaint pertained to the facts that Jaspal Singh and Sanjay Anand in connivance and controversy with each other and other co-accused had forged the signatures of various members, so as to obtain the proxies in their favour and resultantly voted in favour of K.K. Puri and Naresh Sareen. After the filing of the complaint, the respondent/complainant preferred an application for issuance of summons to the concerned clerk of the LSE Securities Limited, Ludhiana, Stock Exchange Building, Ludhiana alogwith the record of proxies as well as resolutions of the companies given for the election of directors held on 15.09.2012. Even, the said clerk was to bring alongwith him a total list of voters, list of casted votes, list of polling agents, counting agents, list of candidates, their results and also the original record of signatures of voters lying with the LSE Securities Limited on 26.02.2013. The trial Court allowed the application (Annexure P-3) on 27.02.2013 by making remarks on the application itself and no formal order was passed. The petitioner/accused filed an application before the trial Court claiming privilege as the required/summoned record was a confidential record and a further request was made that since the petitioner is also an accused, the record cannot be summoned from them. A detailed reply (Annexure P-5) was filed to the said application.

3. Learned counsel further contended that ultimately the above said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.09.2013 vide order annexure P-6. The trial Court failed to appreciate that under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, no person, who is accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and the impugned order was against the basic and fundamental provisions of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. However, vide order dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure P-8), the Sessions Court refused to exercise the revisional powers only on the ground of maintainability of the revision petition and it was held that the impugned order passed by the trial Court was interlocutory in nature and the revision was not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel further contended that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects the interests of the citizens of this country and it has been clearly laid down that an accused can never be compelled to be a witness against himself. Even, under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has no powers to summon the record from the custody of the accused. Still further, the summoned record is of sen