Article 20(3) self-incrimination protection does not bar examination in company winding-up proceedings under section 185.

Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination applies only where a person is an accused and is compelled to be a witness against himself. A proceeding under section 185 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 is a winding-up proceeding for delivery of company property or documents, not a criminal prosecution, so the person examined is not made an accused and may choose whether to appear. The privilege cannot be invoked in advance on a mere possibility of prejudice in a pending criminal case; it arises only when a specific incriminating question is asked. On that basis, Article 20(3) was held inapplicable to the section 185 proceeding.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who is not being prosecuted in the company proceeding can claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution to postpone his examination until the disposal of a pending criminal case, and whether the power under section 185 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 attracts the bar against self-incrimination.

Analysis: The protection under Article 20(3) applies only where a person is an accused of an offence and is compelled to be a witness against himself. A proceeding under section 185 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 is a winding-up proceeding for delivery of money, property, or documents prima facie belonging to the company, and is not a criminal prosecution. The person proceeded against is not thereby made an accused, nor is he compelled to give evidence; he may choose whether to appear. Even if he testifies, the safeguard in the proviso to section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act limits the use of compelled answers, and the privilege against self-incrimination cannot be invoked in advance merely because of a remote possibility of prejudice in a pending criminal case. The proper time to claim the privilege is when a specific incriminating question is put.

Conclusion: Article 20(3) was held inapplicable to the proceedings under section 185, and the request to adjourn the examination was rejected.

---