Admissibility of Statutory Examinations: sworn answers given under the statutory inspection power are admissible, informal unsworn answers are not.

Answers given on oath by a bank officer when examined pursuant to the Companies Act statutory inspection power are admissible under the Companies Act provision governing admissibility, because the officer was tendered and attended with the bank's authority; those answers are receivable but their weight is for the tribunal. By contrast, informal unsworn answers or recollections obtained outside the statutory examination power are not admissible under that admissibility provision and must be excluded as evidence against the bank.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether answers given on oath by an officer of the company's bankers to Board of Trade inspectors (transcript no. 18) are admissible in evidence against the bank; (ii) Whether unsworn answers given informally to Board of Trade inspectors (transcript no. 3) are admissible in evidence against the bank.

Issue (i): Whether answers given on oath by Mr. Cooper (an officer of the company's bankers) in transcript no. 18 are admissible in evidence against Barclays Bank Ltd.

Analysis: The Court considered sections 167(2) and (5) of the Companies Act, 1948 (inspection power to examine company's bankers on oath) read with section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967 (admissibility). The correspondence and conduct showed the inspectors invited the bank to tender Mr. Cooper for examination and he attended; in the absence of contrary evidence the Court inferred he attended with the bank's authority. Where an officer is tendered and examined on oath under the statutory power, those answers fall within the admissible category under section 50 of the 1967 Act, subject to assessment of their weight.

Conclusion: The sworn answers in transcript no. 18 are admissible in evidence against Barclays Bank Ltd.

Issue (ii): Whether unsworn answers given informally to inspectors (transcript no. 3) are admissible in evidence against the bank.

Analysis: The Court distinguished informal, unsworn oral questioning from examinations conducted under the statutory powers in section 167. While inspectors may informally question persons as a preliminary investigative step, such unsworn recollections or answers given outside the exercise of the statutory examination power do not fall within the scope of section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967 and therefore are not admissible as evidence against the bank under that provision.

Conclusion: The unsworn answers in transcript no. 3 are not admissible in evidence against Barclays Bank Ltd.

Final Conclusion: The Court admitted the sworn evidence elicited under the statutory inspection power (transcript no. 18) and excluded the informal unsworn statements (transcript no. 3), producing a mixed result on the evidentiary questions raised.

Ratio Decidendi: Answers obtained by inspectors under the statutory examination power (section 167 of the Companies Act, 1948) and given on oath by a person tendered with the authority of the company's bankers are admissible under section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967, whereas unsworn answers elicited informally outside the exercise of those statutory powers are not admissible under section 50.

---