9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted illegally in condoning the application under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant provisionally? 2. Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in issuing process under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the accused petitioners based on the complaints filed? Analysis: The judgment addresses eleven rules that raise a common question of law regarding the actions of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The issue revolves around whether the Magistrate acted unlawfully in condoning a delay application provisionally under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the judgment questions the Magistrate's justification in issuing processes under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the accused petitioners based on the complaints filed by the complainant. The complainant filed 11 petitions of complaint with applications for condonation of an 11-month delay, starting from March 1973. The complaints alleged that the accused individuals, who were officers and directors/secretaries of a company, contravened section 418(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, rendering themselves liable for an offense under section 420 of the same Act. The complaints detailed irregularities in the administration of provident fund accounts and contraventions of various rules and provisions of the Companies Act noticed during an inspection of the company's books of account. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate provisionally condoned the delay and proceeded to take cognizance of the offense based on the complaints, issuing processes under section 420 of the Companies Act against the accused individuals. However, the judgment found that the Magistrate acted illegally and without jurisdiction in condoning the delay provisionally. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the taking of cognizance of an offense if it is barred by limitation, and the Magistrate should have first formally condoned the delay before taking cognizance. Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that the complaints did not establish a prima facie case for issuing processes under section 420 of the Companies Act against the accused individuals. The complaints lacked indications that the accused knowingly contravened or authorized the contravention of the relevant provisions. As a result, the entire proceeding against the accused persons, including the accused petitioner, was deemed unjustified, leading to the quashing of the pending proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment made the rules absolute, setting aside the impugned orders and quashing the proceedings against the accused individuals, including the accused petitioner.
|
