Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits compelling a person accused of an offence to be a witness against himself, does not apply to a public examination of Directors under Section 45-G of the Banking Companies Act, as such examination is not an accusation for an offence.

( 1 ) THIS is a proceeding under Section 45-G of the Banking Companies Act, The proceedings relate to the affairs of the Central Calcutta Bank Ltd. , now in Liquidation.

( 2 ) THE Report of the Court Liquidator who is the Official Liquidator of the Central Calcutta Bank Ltd. (in Liquidation) was submitted to this Court under Section 45-G of the Banking Companies Act on 2-1-1957. The main prayer in the Report asks for an order directing public examination of the Directors of the Bank mentioned in the Report on a date to bo appointed by the Court. The names of the Directors for the relevant period are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Report of whom No. 1 Charu Chandra Dutt, who was the Chairman of the Board of Directors, is now dead and two others, Nos. 12 and 13 being respectively Asoke Kumar Sen and Jotindra Chandra Rui, have been released from these proceedings by me on the ground that they were not concerned with the transactions complained of during the relevant period.

( 3 ) A number of Directors have appeared through Counsel and filed their respective affidavits. On the merits the gist of their affidavits is that they were passive onlookers and dummies on the Board of Directors and it was the Managing Director, Debidas Roy, who was responsible for all the losses of the Bank. I have held previously that I do not consider that to be a sufficient ground why these directors should not be publicly examined. The Companies Act does not provide for sleeping Directors. If they were acting as Directors, then it is no excuse to say that they asked somebody else to do their job. The Companies Act charges a Director with many responsible duties and expects every Director to discharge such duties. Many statutory duties are imposed on him under the law, and he cannot delegate his entire statutory office to somebody else, On the 'merits, therefore, the objections on behalf of the Directors to their public examination have not been pressed.

( 4 ) THE other objection that was argued was formulated by Mr. G. P. Kar, learned counesl for one of the Directors. His contention is that Section 45-G, Banking Companies Act, is ultra wires the Constitution. It is contended that the provisions of Section 45-G, Banking Companies Act, violate Article 20 (3), Constitution of India. The argument is that as the notes of the examination of such evidence may be used later in evidence against the person in any proceeding, civil or criminal, under Section 45-G (8), Banking Companies Act, a public examination of the Director is bad under that particular provision of the Constitution. I find it difficult to accept this argument. There are many reasons for which I consider this constitutional objection should not be upheld.

( 5 ) IN the first place, Article 20 (3) of the Constitution provides : "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. " Now a public examination of a Director under Section 45-G, Banking Companies Act, does not necessarily mean that the Director shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and to give evidence against himself. His evidence may be, and very often is, one of complete exoneration of himself. If, for instance, in this case the affidavits used by the Directors are any guide, as indeed they are, on which they are likely to give evidence, such evidence, far from incriminating themselves, is going to blame others. If any individual question is asked in examination which is likely to incriminate the witness, he can refuse to answer the same and seek the constitutional protection. Express provisions are made in Section 45-G, Banking Companies Act, to say that only such questions are allowed to be put to the witness as the High Court thinks fit. I do not see any reason why I should assume that the High Court would allow self-incriminating questions to be put to a witness, and even if it did, why it should not be corrected either by itself or by the Supreme Court. The t