PEOPLE INSURANCE CO Vs. SARDAR SARDUL SINGH CAVEESHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 8th July, 1956, the official liquidator of the Peoples Insurance Company limited, in liquidation, filed a petition under Section 185 of the Indian Companies act, 1913, against S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar praying that the respondent may be ordered to pay Rs. 5,73,100 to the petitioners. The Company had been ordered to be compulsorily would up by the District Judge, Delhi, on 29th April, 1955. The respondent was the managing-director of the company. In this petition the official liquidator maintained that several amounts totaling Rs. 5,73,100/- belonging to the company were being wrongfully held by the respondent which, it was prayed, the respondent should be ordered to repay. The respondent denied that he was in possession of any moneys or property belonging to the company. On 30th november 1956, the following issues were framed:- (1) Whether the application is maintainable under Section 185 of the indian Companies Act, 1913?

(2.) WHETHER the respondent is in possession of the sums in question belonging to the company? on 22nd July, 1960, the evidence for the official liquidator was closed and 19th august,1960, was fixed for recording the evidence for the respondent, and on that day this application (l. M. 89 of 1960) was made praying for the adjournment of the proceedings in C. O. 38 of 1956 till after the decision of the criminal case pending against the respondent. Inter alia, it was also said that the subject-matter of the petition C. O. 38 of 1956 also formed part of the subject-matter of the criminal complaint filed against the respondent in the criminal Court at Delhi. It was said, that if the respondent made any statement in this Court in C. W. 38 of 1956, the prosecution was bound to take advantage of it and it would seriously prejudice the defence of the respondent in the criminal case. On these grounds, it was stated that the respondent should not be examined till the criminal case was decided and he should not be compelled to depose to facts which were alleged against him in the criminal case, otherwise the protection guaranteed to him by Article20 of the Constitution would be violated. This prayer is opposed by the official liquidator and the question which calls for decision is whether, in view of the provisions of Article 20 (s) of the Constitution of India, the respondent should not be examined till the criminal case pending against him is decided. (2) Section 185 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 Provides:-"185. Power to require delivery of property--The Court may, at any time after making a winding up order, require any contributory for the time being settled on the list of contributories and any trustee, receiver, banker, agent, or officer of the company to pay, deliver surrender or transfer, forthwith, or within such time as the Court directs, to the official liquidator any money, property or documents in his hands to which the company is prima facie entitled. "

(3.) THE respondent, along with others, is being prosecuted in the Court of a magistrate at Delhi on the charge of his having committed offences punishable under S. 120b, I. P. C read with Ss. 409,109, 409/34, 201 and 277-A of the Penal code. It is admitted that the subject-matter of the application under Sec. 185 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. In this Court, the respondent has to lead his evidence. He wants the adjournment of these proceedings till after the decision of the criminal case, on the ground, that if he makes any statement in this Court the prosecution is bound to take advantage of it and his defence in the criminal case has be seriously prejudiced. The question for consideration is whether in these circumstances a case has been made out for extending to the respondent, the protection under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. This Article provides: "20. (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. "