An order for public examination under S.45G of the Banking Companies Act does not violate Art.20(3) of the Constitution, even when made on an allegation of fraud.

1. On December 19,1956, the Popular Bank Ltd. was ordered by the High Court of Kerala to be wound up. A liquidator of the bank was also appointed. In the winding up proceedings that followed on the application of the liquidator an order was made by a learned Single Judge of the High Court under S.478 of the Companies Act, 1956 and S.45G of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 directing the public examination of nine officers of the bank. Six appeals were filed by the officers concerned against that order to an appellate bench of the High Court and these appeals were allowed. The liquidator has filed the present six appeals against the orders of the appellate bench. There were several other persons against whom orders were sought by the liquidator in that application but with them we are not concerned in these appeals.

2. The application by the liquidator to the learned Single Judge on the face of it stated that it had been made under S.478, 531, 538, 539 and 541 to 545 of the Companies Act and S.45G, 45H and 451 of the Banking Companies Act. Various allegations of misfeasances and malfeasances were made against the nine officers in that application and in the end it was stated in Para.19 that "From the facts stated above, it appears that counter-petitioners 1 to 8 and 12 to 16 are guilty or privy to acts of fraud, misfeasance, breach of trust and misappropriation and falsification of accounts in relation to the affairs of the Company under S.538 (i) and 0), 539 (b), 542 and 543 of the Companies Act I of 1956". The counter-petitioners 1 to 8 and 12 are the nine officers against whom the impugned order for public examination had been made. It is necessary to set out two of the prayers in the application as arguments have been based on them. They are "(a) By virtue of the powers under S.477 and 478 of the Companies Act I of 1956 and S.45G of the Banking Companies Act, to summon before it the counter-petitioners and publicly examine them as to the conduct of the business of the Company and as to their conduct and dealings as officers thereof and "(d) By virtue of the powers under S.545 of the Companies Act to refer the matter to the Registrar of Companies for prosecuting the offenders or by virtue of the powers conferred on the High Court by S.45J of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 as amended by Act 52 of 1953 to take cognizance of and try in a summary way the offences committed by the counter-petitioners".

3. It appears that on June 13, 1958 the learned Single Judge before whom the application had been moved made an order stating that it was not proper to make an application combining together so many different sections of the two Acts and directing that the application "be treated as a report under S.455 (2) of the Companies Act & S.45 G of the Banking Companies Act & the court Liquidator will be at liberty to make separate applications for such other reliefs as he seeks." It does not appear from the record whether any such separate application had been made. The-effect of the order was to confine the application to prayer (a) only and it was in terms of it that the impugned order was made.

4. The only question argued at the Bar was whether the order for public examination was void as offending Art.20(3) of the Constitution which says that "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." On this question the learned Single Judge held that the article was not violated as the persons directed to be publicly examined had not been accused of any offence. The learned judges of the appellate bench allowed the appeals taking the view that the nine officers must be said to have been accused of various offences under S.538, 539 and 541 of the Companies Act as in spite of the order of June 13, 1958 the application containing allegations of commission of such offences by them as also prayer (d) asking for their prosecution and trial in respect of them, remained on the record of the Court and that p