https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98759 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. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98759 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Jun 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98759