9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (2) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of a Company known as Nabasakti Insurance Company which has been incorporated both under Act VII of 1913 and Act V of 1912. The Petitioner Surendra Nath Sarkar is the manager of the Company. The ground upon which the Rule was issued is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take proceedings in these matters on a private complaint. Mr. S.K. Basu appeared in support of the Rule. I may note that in Case No. 823 the allegation is one of falsification of accounts and in Case No. 825 various offences are alleged to have been committed against the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. Mr. Basu contended that the new Indian Companies Act has made elaborate provisions for the investigation of offences in connection with companies and fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter beyond doubt. In this connection Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the Crown drew our attention to certain decisions in connection with the Fishery Acts: The Queen v. Cubitt (22 Q.B.D. 622) and Anderson v . Hamlin (25 Q.B.D. 221). It was there held that private prosecutions under these Acts were barred. It is true that those decisions were based upon the actual words used in the relevant statutes. But it may well be that Section 888 was inserted in the English Act to place the matter beyond doubt. At any rate, in the absence of any specific provision in the Act itself, we cannot infer from the mere omission of a similar provision in the Indian Act that the intention of the legislature was to bar private prosecutions. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to investigate. We are quite satisfied that the intention of the section is to facilitate the investigation of the affairs of a Company and it has no reference to actual proceedings in Court. Section 107 of the Insurance Act requires the sanction of the Advocate-General before a private prosecution could be started. On behalf of the Crown Mr. Chatterjee contended that that section relates only to a prosecution under sub-section (2) of Section 41. Section 107 is in these terms: "Except where proceedings are instituted by the Superintendent of Insurance, no proceedings under this Act against an insurer or any director, manager or other officer of an insurer or any person who is liable under sub-section (2) of Section 41 shall be institu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies Act contemplated only a Crown prosecution and not a prosecution by a private individual. Looking into the Companies Act, I find that Section 137 deals with "Investigation by the Registrar" in certain circumstances. There may, however, be a complaint by a contributory or a creditor for failure to comply with the requirements of the Act, without alleging any fraud mentioned in Section 137(6); in such a case, apparently, no investigation under Section 137 and no report under Section 138 will be made; consequently Section 141-A will not come into operation as a bar to the proceeding. I am therefore of opinion that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should proceed with the trial on the lines indicated in the judgment that has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
