9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the power of the District Magistrate to order investigation into a case under section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether a general search for all documents or only specific documents connected to an offense is permissible under the law. 3. Applicability of section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code to companies and the liability of officers of the company. Interpretation of Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code: The judgment addresses the issue of whether the District Magistrate, under section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has the authority to order an investigation into a case under section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that since section 294-A requires a complaint by the Local Government or an authorized officer for trial under section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no court can try the offense until such a complaint is made. However, the judge clarified that there is a distinction between possessing power and exercising power. While acknowledging that a trial without the required complaint might be considered as acting without jurisdiction, the judge emphasized that the power to try the case exists. The judge dismissed the objection raised by the petitioner, citing various rulings to support the decision. Scope of Search for Documents: The judgment also delves into the issue of whether a general search for all documents or only specific documents related to an offense is permissible. The judge referred to previous rulings but concluded that the suspicion of the company's involvement in illegal activities justifies investigating all books under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judge highlighted that in cases involving offenses like holding a lottery or swindling, all company books could be relevant in determining the nature of the offense. Applicability of Section 294-A to Companies and Liability of Officers: Another issue addressed in the judgment is the applicability of section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code to companies. The petitioner argued that the term "whoever" in the section implies a natural person and not a corporation. However, the judge rejected this argument, stating that even if the corporation itself is not liable, its officers could be. The judge emphasized that investigation is necessary to determine the liability of any individual involved. The judgment highlights the importance of investigating officers or individuals within the company to establish liability. Conclusion: In conclusion, the judge rejected the petition on technical grounds but emphasized that there was no justification for suspending the company's operations entirely. The judge directed the Government Advocate to inquire about the reasonable facilities the Police could offer to the petitioners. Subsequently, an order was passed allowing clerks of the company to visit the Police Station during specified hours to take copies of relevant entries in the registers seized by the Police. The judgment balances the need for investigation with ensuring that the company can continue its operations within reasonable constraints imposed by the ongoing legal proceedings.
|
