: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5558 OF 2009 Vijay K. Mehta ... Petitioner V/s. Charu K. Mehta & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.4926 OF 2009 Vijay K. Mehta ... Petitioner V/s. Charu K. Mehta & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain a/w Ms.Kunal Vajani i/b M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Petitioner Mr.Dinesh Purandare a/w Roy Patel, Pranav Sampat, Naseer Rizvi i/b Thakore Jariwala & Asso. for Resp. No.1 Ms.R.C. Nichani a/w Rohan Kelkar and Shane Sapeco i/b Hariani & CO. for Respondent Nos.10 to 12 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1st JULY, 2009 P. C.: 1. Both these petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Writ Petition No.4926 of 2009 challenges the order dated 7.5.2009 by which exhibit 160 filed by the respondent has been rejected. Writ Petition No.5558 of 2009 has been filed against the order passed on 27.5.2009 directing the petitioner to produce documents as per exhibit A annexed to exhibit 167 : 2 : on or before 8.6.2009. 2. An application was made by the respondent herein for production of certain documents. That application was disallowed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 26.3.2009. This was because the application filed by the respondent was vague and no reasons were mentioned in the application as to why those documents were required. The order of the Joint Charity Commissioner was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No.3919 of 2009. By my order dated 17.4.2009, that order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner was upheld. However, the respondent was given liberty file a fresh application for production of documents in which details of the documents required and the reasons for the same were required to be set out. The application was to be filed within a week from the date of the order. Accordingly, an application was filed by the respondent on 23.4.2009, admittedly within a week from the date of my order in the writ petition. Directions were sought against opponent Nos.1 to 9 i.e. including the petitioner herein, to produce certain documents which were mentioned in exhibits A, B and C to the application. This application was marked as exhibit 160. The application was opposed by the Petitioner and other opponents. During the pendency of this application, the respondent filed application Exhibit 167 on 6.5.2009 for amendment of exhibit 160 by substituting exhibit A to the earlier application. The petitioner and other opponents were directed to file their say. By an order dated 7.5.2009 the Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the request for production of documents mentioned in exhibits B and C to the application. The Joint Charity Commissioner further observed as follows: : 3 : "30. As per the directions of the Supreme Court dated 16/1/2009 (In Stamp No.138/09), the inquiry is to be completed within six months. Accordingly, efforts are being made to complete the inquiry expeditiously. The applicant has to adduce evidence in support of the charges framed. By asking production of documents as per Exhs. B & C, the applicant is trying to expand the scope of the enquiry. This will further delay the matter. For this reason also the prayer for documents on Exhs. B & C cannot be accepted. 31. During the course of hearing, when the defect of vagueness of the application was pointed out, the applicant moved another application Exh. 167 seeking permission to give better particulars to the Exh.A. According to Advocate Shri Inamdar, by this the applicant admits that, application Exh. 160 is vague. He has orally objected the application. However, in the facts of the case, to save the time, as well as, in the interest of justice, despite rejection of the application Exh. 160, it would be proper to consider application No.167. In other words, if after giving opportunity to both sides and hearing them, it is fond that, the better particulars mentioned in it fulfill the requirements as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 17/4/2009, that may be considered." 3. It appears that the Joint Charity Commissioner has disposed of exhibit 160 only because by the order passed in the writ petition, he was directed to decide the application for production of documents within two weeks from the date it was filed. 4. After the say of the opponent including the respondents herein was filed, the Joint Charity Commissioner has disposed of Exhibit 167 by directing the petitioner to produce the documents listed in exhibit A annexed to exhibit 167, except the bank statements. 5. The petitioner has taken exception to this order in Writ Petition No.5558 of 2009. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner is unsustainable since it has been passed on exhibit 167 which lacked details and reasons for seeking production of the documents. He submits that having rejected exhibit 160, the Joint Charity Commissioner could not have allowed Exhibit 167 when it was only an amendment application. He further : 4 : submits that proceedings u/s 41D are quasi criminal in nature and therefore the petitioner cannot be called upon to produce documents which could incriminate him. Reliance is placed on the judgement of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mallikarjunappa vs.Jt. Charity Commissioner, 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 148 and of the Division Bench in the case of Clough Engineering Ltd. Oil and Gas Division v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, 2009 Vol.111(4) Bom.L.R. 1671. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Sharma and others v/s. Satish Chandra & Ors., 1954 SCR 1077 in support of his submission that the order directing the petitioner to produce documents is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel submits that in any event the respondent has sought production of the same documents by adopting other procedures. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the order passed on exhibit 167 on 27.5.2009 cannot be faulted. The petitioner had adequate notice of the reasons for seeking production of the documents which were listed in annexure A to exhibit 167. The application at exhibit 167 was for amendment of exhibit 160 since the details of the documents were not annexed to that application. The parties were aware that the reasons for seeking production were contained in exhibit 160 and that the Joint Charity Commissioner while disposing of the application at exhibit 160 has referred to the filing of exhibit 167 for amendment. That application had been adjourned for the say to be filed by the petitioner. In my view, there is no perversity in the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and, therefore, it need not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The more appropriate procedure perhaps could have been to decide both Exhibit 160 : 5 : and Exhibit 167 together. However, the Petitioner is not prejudiced in any manner in the present case since he was aware of the reasons for seeking production of the documents. 7. The submission of the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the fundamental rights of the petitioner contained in Article 20(3) have been breached by this order is also unsustainable. It is true that the standard of proof required in proceedings u/s 41D would be higher than merely preponderance of probabilities. However, it is not the strict proof that is required in a criminal action. In Mallikarjunappa's case (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that proceedings u/s 41D cannot be regarded as adversarial and instead are "semi inquisitive in character". 8. In the case of Clough Engineering (supra), the Division Bench considered a case under the Contempt of Courts Act and found that the directions issued to the Company to disclose the names of the officers of the company against whom the alleged contempt action could be initiated was self incriminatory. In my opinion, it would be incorrect to equate the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act with an enquiry u/s 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Besides, Article 20(3) has no application to the facts in the present case. The petitioner is not an accused before any Court. Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, there is a prohibition to compel a "person accused of any offence" to be a witness against himself. Although it is settled law that this immunity would extend to the production of documentary evidence as held in M.P. Sharma'sSharma's case (supra) by the Supreme Court it is not applicable to the facts in the present case. The words "accused of an offence" : 6 : would not extend to parties and witnesses in civil proceedings or proceedings other than criminal proceedings. An offence is an act or omission punishable under any law in force. The proceedings u/s 41D do not result in punishment as the only consequence of such proceedings is that a person could be suspended, removed or dismissed as trustee. Merely because the standard of proof required in proceedings u/s 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is higher than in civil matters it would not necessarily mean that the petitioner would be entitled to immunity under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 9. In any event, these documents pertain to the activities of the Trust and, therefore, the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner in my opinion, does not contain any infirmity nor is it perverse requiring interference from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Petitions rejected.