AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (2) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is whether the appellant is or is not entitled, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to protection of article 20(3) of the Constitution, which says that "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". On report by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi, under sub-section (6) of section 234 of the Act concerning the affairs of the Udyog Company, the Central Government being of the view that it was desirable that inspectors be appointed to investigate into the affairs-of that company and to report thereon, it, by notification No. 2(9)-CL. 1/62, of April 19, 1963, appointed Mr. R.R. Kini (respondent), Legal Adviser, and Mr. S.M. Dugar, Senior Accounts Officer, in the department of Company Law Administration, as inspectors to investigate into the affairs of that company for the period from January 1, 1953, to date and even for the period prior thereto, should the inspectors consider necessary to do so, and to report thereon pointing out, inter alia, all irregularities and contraventions in respect of the provisions of the Act or of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, or of any other law for the time being in force and the person or persons who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the offences for forgery and falsification of accounts came into being in or about 1946 at Delhi and continued to exist till 1953, during which period it ramifications spread over other places in India. All the accused mentioned above were parties to the criminal conspiracy.... 36. On March 25,1953, the Board of Directors of Dalmia Jain Aviation Limited consisting of R. Sharma (since dead), S.K. Sanghi, accused No. 18 and G. Ramachandran, accused No. 19, authorised S.N. Dudani, accused No 15, to dispose of the records of Dalmia Jain Airways Limited and all the important and incriminating records were done with, " It is said that previously the name of the Udyog Company was Dalmia Jain Aviation Limited. One of the allegations against the accused persons including the appellant, in that case is said to be that the funds of Dalmia Jain Airways Limited were siphoned away through Dalmia Jain Aviatioi Limited, now the Udyog Company, and then the offence of breach of trust of the funds and assets of Dalmia Jain Airways Limited was committed by the accused persons. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the object of the questions in the investigation by the inspector....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al adviser before the inspector and he was not in a position to take such a technical objection to the nature and character of the questions that were being put to him. It is said that there has been a refusal on the part of the inspector to allow the appellant legal aid of a counsel. But the learned Additional Solicitor-General has stated at the bar that there would be no objection by the inspector to the presence of a counsel for the purpose of aiding and advising the appellant to raise objections to the incriminating nature and character of any question put to him. But of course such assistance will only be confined to such advice. The learned counsel for the appellant has further referred to the final order made by the Tribunal that the appellant will answer such questions as may be put to him by the inspector with regard to the affairs of the Udyog Company and he says that in this there is no reservation that the questions are to be subject to the limitation as in sub-article (3) of article 20. This, however, is an approach without substance because every tribunal which has the power to examine a person in any connection must keep in view the provisions of that article. Merely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is not possible for the inspector to prepare a list of questions for an obvious reason that the run of the questions will depend to a very great extent upon the manner in which the answers are given and the information sought in question is supplied. The learned counsel has also made reference to certain parts of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, commonly known as Bose Commission Report, and in it there was reference to Dalmia Jain Aviation Limited, the previous same of the Udyog-Company, at pages 366, 417 and 419. The object of this has been that there has already been some kind of investigation, with regard to the Udyog Company when its name was Dalmia Jain Aviation Limited. It has not been quite clear how any reference to that company in the report of the Bose Commission affects the power of the Central Government under section 235 of the Act to appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of the Udyog Company or the jurisdiction of the inspector to do so under the succeeding provisions of the Act. It is thus clear that there is nothing in the present case upon which sub-article (3) of article 20 can operate and it cannot possibly be applied to a vague allegation th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of the position taken by the appellant in reply to the application of the inspector. When asked what possible type of evidence had the appellant in mind when making such an application, the learned counsel has, in the face of the vague allegations detailed above, had to fall back into saying that the appellant would have led evidence connected with the criminal case pending against him in the court of the District Magistrate, but the Tribunal could not be turned into something like a parallel court trying the same thing as the District Magistrate has to try in that case. This approach, on the facts, is entirely misconceived. In the face of the vagueness of the allegation on the side of the appellant that the questions which the inspector will put to him, without knowing what questions the inspector will put to him or what will be the trend of those questions, would be likely to incriminate him, it was quite impossible for the appellant to lead any evidence with regard to the same or for the Tribunal to permit the appellant to do so. The only manner in which evidence could have been attracted and, even that matter sub-article (3) of article 20 could come into consideration, was ....