SUSHIL KUMAR SANGHI Vs. R R KINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 10d of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), hereinafter to be referred as "the Act", by Sushil Kumar Sanghi, appellant from the order dated November 26, 1964, of the Companies Tribunal made under Section 240, read with Section 10a (1) (b), of the Act, accepting the application made by the respondent, Mr. R. R. Kini, who has been appointed as inspector by the Central Government to investigate the affairs of Asia Udyog (Private) Limited, hereinafter to be referred as "the Udyog Company", under Section 235 (c) of the Act, and ordering the appellant " to answer such questions as may be put to him by the petitioner (respondent with regard to the affairs of the Udyog Limited from and after 13th February, 1953", the main question for consideration 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 ".

(2.) 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. l/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 I, 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 are responsible for such irregularities and contraventions. The inspectors were to complete their investigation and make the report within three months from the date of the notification, but as that was not possible, that time was extended from time to time.

(3.) IT was Mr. R. R. Kini alone who took up the investigation of the Udyog Company. The appellant was asked to appear before him on July 16, 1964, which he did, and on that day a part of his statement was recorded. On the next day, that is to say, on July 17, 1964, when the appellant appeared again to continue his statement, he moved two applications objecting to being questioned by the inspector, which applications were dismissed on July 31, 1964. The appellant was to appear before the inspector on August 15, 1964, to continue his statement, but on August 13 he wrote informing the Inspector that he was not going to appear any further before him. This he seems to have also conveyed to him orally.