Admissibility of compelled company examination answers confirmed where no statutory bar prevents later criminal use.

Answers given by a company officer under section 167(2) of the Companies Act, 1948 were held admissible in later criminal proceedings because the provision authorised examination on oath but contained no express bar on subsequent use of the answers. The contrast with section 167(4), which expressly permitted notes of examination to be used in evidence, supported the refusal to imply an exclusion for section 167(2). The analysis also relied on analogous bankruptcy authorities for the principle that statutorily compelled answers may be used in evidence unless the statute provides otherwise. Section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967 was treated as confirming that position and, as a procedural evidential rule, applying to trials after commencement. The objection based on discretion to exclude the evidence was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether answers given by a company officer under section 167(2) of the Companies Act, 1948 were admissible in later criminal proceedings, and if not, whether section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967 applied to make such answers admissible.

Analysis: Section 167(2) empowered inspectors to examine officers and agents on oath but contained no express restriction on later use of the answers. Section 167(4), dealing with other persons examined by court order, expressly stated that the notes of examination might thereafter be used in evidence against the person examined. The reasoning treated the absence of an express exclusion in section 167(2) as significant and declined to imply a proviso barring use in criminal proceedings. Earlier authorities on analogous bankruptcy provisions were relied upon to support the view that answers lawfully compelled under a statutory examination may be given in evidence unless the statute provides otherwise. The later enactment in section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967 was treated as confirming or removing doubt and, in any event, as applicable to trials held after its commencement because it concerned evidence and procedure rather than substantive rights.

Conclusion: The answers were admissible in evidence against the defendant under the unamended law, and alternatively under section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967. The objection based on discretion to exclude the evidence was also rejected.

---