9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (8) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1950, he ceased to have anything to do with the management of the company. He was employed thereafter at Kozhikode and later at Bombay. From the averments in the counter affidavit of the second respondent it appears that in the balance sheet of the company, filed with the Assistant Registrar of Companies at Erode on 7th March, 1949, tangible assets of the company to the extent of nearly Rs. 49,000 were disclosed. It was alleged that no balance sheet was filed with the Registrar of Companies subsequent to that. There were charges and counter charges as between the directors and ex-directors of the company. On 8th June, 1955, the Registrar of Companies addressed a letter to the Inspector-General of Police, Madras. A copy of that letter was filed as Exhibit A, annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. In that letter the Registrar referred to the enquiries conducted by the officers of his department and to the advice of the Public Prosecutor, Cuddalore, in whose opinion "there was a prima facie good case for police investigation and charging the officers of the company for offences under sections 406, 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code." The Registrar requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the issue of a writ of prohibition "prohibiting all further investigation by the third respondent in so far as the petitioner is concerned in respect of the affairs of the Agricultural and Industrial Credit Corporation Ltd." The petitioner's claim was that he was arrested at Bombay on 29th October, 1955, and that he was subsequently released on bail. The truth of that was not challenged. The petitioner himself apparently did not know on what charges he was arrested. The arrest was without a warrant. Even in the counter affidavit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 there was nothing to show what led to the arrest of the petitioner on 29th October, 1955. Nor even was there anything to indicate that the arrest was effected on the basis of the letter dated 8th June, 1955, which was treated as a complaint for the purposes of investigation by the police. When the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, the petitioner was apparently under the impression, that he had been arrested in the course of investigation into the complaint dated 8th June, 1955, which was at that stage treated as the first information report in Cr. No. 892 of 1955 of the Erode police stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he disclosure of the name of the person suspected to have committed the offence may not be necessary to authorize an investigation by the police officer. The relief, that the petitioner eventually asked for in these proceedings before me under article 226 of the Constitution was, that a writ of prohibition should issue to restrain the third respondent from investigating into the charges against the petitioner, the charges that he was suspected of having committed offences punishable under sections 406, 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. If the third respondent, who is now in charge of the conduct of the investigation, has jurisdiction to investigate the charges against the accused, then obviously no writ of prohibition can issue. The complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Registrar of Companies acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he addressed the letter dated 8th June, 1955, to the Inspector-General of Police asking for an investigation. I shall deal with that contention a little later. Even if the Registrar acted in contravention of any statutory provisions in preferring a complaint to the police, that in my opinion, may not affect the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years." The learned Advocate-General pointed out that there was no statutory provision in the English Companies Act to correspond to section 630 of the Act. Section 630 of the Act is really based on and is analogous to section 16 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, of England. The scope of the summary procedure provided for by section 16 of the Friendly Societies Act and that of the relief's that could be claimed or granted under that section were explained by the Court of Appeal in Vernon v. Watson [1891] 2 QB 288 . Lord Halsbury L. C. observed : "If the operation of the statute had been confined to criminal proceedings I should have entertained no doubt that imprisonment for the criminal offence afforded no answer to a civil claim for the debt." After pointing out that in section 16 two different proceedings were mixed up together, the Lord Chancellor observed : "We must apply the ordinary principles of law to each part of the procedure. In fact the legislation itself points in that direction, because one part of the sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommitted. Those are offences against the State. In the prosecution of a person suspected of having committed such offences, it is the State representing society as a whole that is interested. The benefits conferred by section 630 of the Act are confined to the company, to its representatives, specified by section 630 itself. It is a little difficult to see any real basis for the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that section 630 of the Act bars an investigation or prosecution for offences punishable under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 630 of the Act provides no statutory bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in a police officer by sections 154, 156 (1) and 157 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner next referred to the provisions of the Act dealing with the powers of the Registrar and the Central Government, and in particular to sections 234 and 242 of the Act. Section 242(1) is only an enabling provision, as the use of the word "may" in the passage "the Central Government may after taking such legal advice as it thinks fit prosecute such a person for the offence" indicates. By itself sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
