Winding-up court may use proclamation and attachment powers to secure appearance in Companies Act offence trials.

A winding-up court empowered under the Companies Act to take cognizance of an offence under section 454(5) and try it as a summons case may also use the procedural powers of the criminal process to secure the accused's appearance. Reading the winding-up jurisdiction and the summons-case procedure together, the court may invoke Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the powers of proclamation and attachment under sections 82 and 83 where a warrant has been issued and the person has absconded or is concealing himself. The note states that these coercive steps are therefore maintainable in such proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court winding up the company could, while taking cognizance and trying the offence under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, invoke the provisions of sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to compel the appearance of the opposite party and order proclamation and attachment.

Analysis: Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 vests the winding-up court with jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of proceedings by or against the company. Section 454(5A) empowers that court to take cognizance of the offence under section 454(5) and try it in accordance with the procedure for summons cases. Reading these provisions together, the court hearing the winding-up matter has all incidental powers available under the procedural code for conducting the trial, including the powers relating to summons, warrants, proclamation, and attachment. The provisions of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply to processes to compel appearance, and sections 82 and 83 specifically authorize proclamation and attachment where a person against whom warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself.

Conclusion: The winding-up court was competent to invoke sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the application for proclamation against the opposite party was maintainable and justified on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Companies Act vests the winding-up court with jurisdiction to try an offence and requires trial according to summons-case procedure, that court may use the procedural powers of the criminal process, including proclamation and attachment, to secure the appearance of the accused.

---