Statutory examination evidence: sworn answers by a bank officer were admissible, but informal unsworn answers were not.

Sworn answers given by an authorised officer of a corporate bank during a statutory examination by Board of Trade inspectors were admissible against the bank, because section 167(2) of the Companies Act 1948, read with section 167(5), permitted examination of the bankers on oath and the answers fell within section 50 of the Companies Act 1967, subject to weight. Unsworn answers obtained during informal preliminary questioning were not admissible, because they were outside the statutory examination powers and were not the kind of answers contemplated by section 50. The distinction turned on whether the responses were given in the course of the authorised statutory examination or in informal questioning.

---

---

Issues: Whether answers given by officers of a company's bankers to Board of Trade inspectors were admissible in evidence against the bank, and whether the answer was affected by the distinction between sworn answers obtained in a statutory examination and unsworn answers obtained during informal questioning.

Analysis: Section 167(2) of the Companies Act, 1948, read with section 167(5), empowered inspectors to examine the company's bankers on oath, which included examination of an authorised officer or agent of a corporate bank. Where the bank had been invited to produce its officer for examination and the officer attended with the bank's authority, sworn answers given in the course of that statutory examination fell within section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967 and were admissible, subject to weight, against the bank. By contrast, unsworn answers elicited during informal preliminary questioning were outside the statutory ambit, because they were not answers given in exercise of the powers under section 167 and were not the sort of answers contemplated by section 50.

Conclusion: The sworn answers in transcript no. 18 were admissible in evidence against the bank, but the unsworn answers in transcript no. 3 were not.

---