These appeals arise out of a series of orders directing the Official Liquidator of the Podanur Bank, Ltd., Tiruvadamaruthur, to prosecute the appellant, his co-directors and the Secretary of the Company for offences under the penal provisions of the Indian Companies Act. That the orders in question are appealable under section 202 of the Indian Companies Act is established so far as this Court is concerned by the decisions in Kesavaloo Naidu v. Murugappa Mudali1 and Chockalingam v. Official Liquidator2. The winding up of the Company was ordered by the learned Judge on the Original Side of this Court in January, 1943, and further proceedings were to be in the Court of the District Judge of West Tanjore. On 3rd November, 1943, an application was filed under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act alleging various acts of misfeasance, etc., on the part of the directors and the Secretary and asking the Court to require the respondents to make good the loss occasioned by their default. In the enquiry into this petition interrogatories were served on the respondents and an opportunity was given to them to state their case and to be represented by their counsel. The enquiry was very prolonged and on 31st July, 1945, the District Judge wrote a detailed order in the course of which he expressed the opinion that whereas the guilt of the Secretary was fairly clear, so far as the directors were concerned it is a matter of considerable difficulty to decide whether they were merely culpably negligent, or were conniving parties to the fraudulent concealment of facts from the general body in the balance sheets, or the alleged unauthorised and fraudulent sales. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary to establish prima facie the criminal liability of the directors and for the preparation of false balance sheets or for fraudulent sales. He seems to have been influenced by an offer made by counsel on their behalf to purchase the unsold decrees and make good any losses so that payment in full may be made. The learned District Judge therefore directed the Official Liquidator to make a report to the Police and if possible to procure a special officer of the Criminal Investigation Department to make further investigation. Meanwhile the petition was treated as “closed.” On 17th February, 1946, the reports of the Special Investigation Officer was received and on the 19th February, the Official Liquidator applied for the revival of the application praying that the directors and the Secretary should make good the losses to the Company. On 20th February, 1946, the learned District Judge passed ex parte proceedings reviving the former application and directing notices to the respondents and he also passed a very unsatisfactory order authorising the liquidator to prosecute “any director, manager or other officer for any offence which might have been committed.” This latter order has been set aside in cur judgment in C.M.A. No. 197 of 1946, as being obviously defective. On 13th March, 1946, that is to say, nearly a month after this order for prosecution had been passed, I.A. No. 96 of 1946 was preferred by two shareholders and one creditor asking the Court to direct the sale of the unrealised assets and the distribution of a further dividend out of the balance in the hands of the liquidators and also asking that the prosecution already ordered should not be financed out of the funds of the Company. At the same time there was a further petition, I.A. No. 97 of 1946, in which the same petitioners prayed for an interim stay of the proceedings for the prosecution of the directors and the secretary. The latter application was dismissed on the 14th March. On the 29th March, the learned District Judge adjourned I.A. No. 96 of 1946 and at the same time suo motu he passed orders for the prosecution of the directors and the Secretary for the offences they were alleged to have committed under the provisi