9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 252 - SC - Companies LawWhether the provisions contained in sections 24, 24A and 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short the Act ) operate as a bar against the prosecution of a person who is charged with the allegations which constitute an offence or offences under other laws including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - a person who is not registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India as Chartered Accountants, but he being not a Chartered Accountant impersonated in the public as such, and performed such functions which are being performed by a Chartered Accountant - After conducting investigation, the police filed challan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul ( the trial court ), who passed order dated 10-3-2003 for framing charges against the respondent under sections 419, 468, 471 and 472 IPC Held that - interpretation to section 195(1)(b)( ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for considering whether the allegations contained in the complaint lodged by Brij Kishor Saxena constitute any offence under the IPC
Issues Involved:
1. Whether sections 24, 24A, and 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, bar prosecution under other laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Whether the respondent, who is not a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, can be prosecuted under the IPC for impersonation and related offenses. 3. Interpretation and application of sections 24, 24A, 26, and 28 of the Chartered Accountants Act, and their interplay with the IPC. 4. Applicability of section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. to the case. 5. Whether the allegations against the respondent constitute offenses under the IPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Bar of Prosecution under Other Laws: The Supreme Court examined whether sections 24, 24A, and 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act bar prosecution under other laws, including the IPC. The Court concluded that these sections do not provide immunity from prosecution under the IPC. The use of the expression "without prejudice to any other proceedings" in sub-section (2) of sections 24A, 25, and 26 indicates that contraventions can lead to prosecution under both the Act and the IPC. 2. Prosecution of Non-Members under IPC: The respondent, who is not a member of the Institute, was alleged to have impersonated a Chartered Accountant and committed various offenses under the IPC, including cheating and forgery. The Court held that the Chartered Accountants Act does not bar prosecution under the IPC for such acts. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to protect the profession of Chartered Accountants from false complaints but does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that constitute offenses under the IPC. 3. Interpretation of Relevant Sections: The Court analyzed sections 24, 24A, 26, and 28 of the Chartered Accountants Act. Section 28 prohibits prosecution under the Act except on a complaint made by or under the order of the Council or the Central Government. However, this prohibition does not extend to offenses under the IPC. The Court clarified that the Act does not define offenses such as cheating by personation or forgery, which are covered under the IPC. Therefore, a person can be prosecuted under both the Act and the IPC for the same act. 4. Applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.: The respondent argued that the prosecution was barred under section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., which requires a complaint by the concerned Court for offenses related to documents produced in Court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the officers of the Income-tax Department and the authorities under the Madhya Pradesh Trade Tax Act do not fall within the definition of "Court" under section 195(3) Cr.P.C. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, which clarified that section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only to offenses committed with respect to documents after they are produced or given in evidence in Court. 5. Allegations Constituting Offenses under IPC: The Court did not delve into whether the allegations against the respondent constitute offenses under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472, and 473 IPC, as the High Court did not base its decision on this ground. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the trial court to determine if the allegations in the complaint constitute any offense under the IPC. If the trial court finds that the allegations do constitute one or more offenses, it shall proceed against the respondent in accordance with law. However, no charges under sections 24, 24A, or 26 of the Act can be framed without a complaint under section 28. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court to consider the allegations under the IPC. The Court clarified that sections 24, 24A, and 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act do not bar prosecution under the IPC, and the prohibition in section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not apply to the case.
|
