The court has jurisdiction to order a public examination of the officers of a company based on the report of the OL, even though the report is not in two separate parts, one containing the particulars required under section 455(1)(a) to (c) and the other expressing the OL's view that fraud has been committed.

( 1 ) THE judgment in this Company Application will dispose of C. As 61/72 and 80/72 also. The applicant in C. A. 61/72 (R. C. Abrol) is the husband of the applicant (Smt. Swaran Lata) in C. A. 80/72. C. A. 12 of 1972 was filed by the Office Liquidator (hereafter referred to in the abbreviated form as O. L.) on 23-12-1971 in the General Section and made over to the Company Section where it was registered on 3-1-1972. The O. L. had filed the report dated 21-12-71. Among other particulars which are required to be, furnished under section 455 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter called the Act), he had also expressed his "clear opinion" that "the directors and certain officers have committed fraud on a big scale in conduct of the business of the company and it is for the aforesaid reasons that tlie company had failed and further a detailed enquiry is desirable". He had also stated, inter alia, that Mrs. Swaran Lata was "only a signing authority" and was illegally being paid Rs. 1000. 00 per month since 1963. Some further allegations had been made to the effect that large amounts which were received as fixed deposits in the name of the company but were put into private accounts of Sliri R. C. Abrol and other directors who used those monies for their priva. te ends and that the price of things and items bought were deliberately inflated : so was the cost of jobs carried out on behalf of the company pocketed by the directors or the officers of the company. It is needless to notice the other portions of this report.

( 2 ) WHEN this application under sections 477 and 478 of the Act (C. A. 12 of 1972) came up for the examination publicly of the officers of the company (described as respondents I to 7), I made an order on 10-1-72 that on perusal of the report a case for such public examination of the seven persons mentioned above had been made out. In pursuance of the same the 5th respondent (Shri A. D. Chaudhary), one of the officers of the company, was examined pub icly on various dates commencing from 14-2-1972 that he had received a notice from the O. L. informing him about the above order passed by this Court about the public examination and that the date had been fixed for such examination on 14-2-1972. He further stated that he had filed an appeal against the said order which came up before a Division Bench of this Court comprising V. S. Deshpande and B. C. Misra, JJ. on 11-2-1972. A notice to show cause was served on the Official Liquidator as to why the appeal should not be heard on 14-2-1972. The Division Bench heard the parties but the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

( 3 ) IT is stated in the present application that the Division Bench pointed out that the matters raised before it could be agitated before the Company Judge once again and hence the appeal was withdrawn. But in the reply filed by the Official Liquidator it is asserted thar the Division Bench had announced the order of dismissal of the appeal after which the applicant made a prayer for withdrawl of the appeal which was allowed. It is further explained that the Division Bench had referred to section 478 (7) of the Act, which reads as follows :

" (7) (a ). If any such person applies to the Court to be exculpated from any charges made or suggested against him, it shall be the duty of the Official Liquidator to appear on the hearing of the application and call the attention of the Court to any matters which appear to the Official Liquidator to be relevant.

(B) If the Court, after hearing any evidence given or witnesses called by the Official Liquidator, grants the application, the Court may allow the applicant such costs as it may think fit. " It is specifically denied that the Division Bench pointed out to the applicant that the matters raised, before it could be agitated before the Company Judge. To this aspect I shall revert last because even independently of the result of the appeal and the finality arising as a result ol such dismissal