The impugned order for public examination violated the constitutional rights of the accused under clause (3) of Art.20 of the Constitution, as it compelled them to be witnesses against themselves.

1. All these appeals are directed against one and the same order. The order appealed against is the order passed by a learned judge of this Court on 19th October 1959 directing a public examination of all these appellants under S.478 of the Indian Companies Act and S.45G of the Banking Companies Act. The order was passed in the course of liquidation proceedings carried on in Banking Company Petition

No. 8/1956 on the file of the High Court. These proceedings relate to a Banking Company known by the name, "The Popular Bank Ltd., Alleppey." The bank commenced its business on 3-9-1944 and owing to financial difficulty it had to suspend its business on 16-8-1956. The Court passed an order on 19-1,2-1956 directing a winding up of this Bank. On 10th January 1958, the Official Liquidator filed a petition C.M.P. No. 113/1958 in B.C.P. No. 8/1956 under S.478, 531, 539 & 541 to 545 of the Companies Act, I of 1956, and under S.45G, 45H and 45J of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, as amended by Act 52 of 1953. The counter-petitioners to this petition are the Directors and other office bearers of the Bank. The legal representatives of a deceased director were also made counter-petitioners to this petition. The following are the prayers contained in this petition:

"The Court may be pleased

(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;

[b] By virtue of the powers under S.543 of the Companies Act, I of 1956, and S.45H of the Banging Companies Act, 1949 as amended by Act 52 of 1953, to examine the conduct of the counter-petitioners in relation to the affairs of the company and compel them to repay or to restore the monies or properties or any part thereof respectively, with interest at such rate as the Court thinks just, or to contribute such sums to the assets of the company by way of compensation in respect of the misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust, as the Court thinks just;

[c] By virtue of the powers under S.542 of the Companies Act, to declare that the counter-petitioners 1 to 8,12 and 13 and S. Damodara Pai, deceased father of counter-petitioners 9 to 11, are jointly and severally and personally responsible without any limitation or liability for all the debts of the company and give such further directions as the Court thinks proper for the purpose of giving effect to that declaration 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 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."

Sub-section (1) of S.455 states that where a winding up order has been made, the Official Liquidator shall, within 6 months from the date of the winding up order, submit a preliminary report to the Court detailing the several particulars as specified in the sub-section about the affairs of the Bank. Under sub-section (2) of the same section, the Official Liquidator may submit a further report or further reports stating the manner in which the company was promoted or formed and whether in his opinion any fraud has been committed by any person in its promotion or formation, or by any officer of the company in relation to the company since the formation thereof and any other matters which in his opinion, it is desirable to bring to the notice of the court. Sub-section (1) of S.45G of the Banking Companies Act also requires the official liquidator to submit a report stating whether in his opinion any loss has been caused to the Banking Company since its formation by any act or omission (whether or not a fraud has been committ