9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (4) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residency Magistrate and numbered as C.C. Nos. 2232 to 2236 of 1956. The complaint in C.C. No. 2232 of 1956 was that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under section 282 of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913), hereinafter referred to as the Act. It was alleged that the list of members and the summary of share capital of the Indian Commercial Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. that the petitioner filed with the Registrar on 25th May, 1954, as director contained false statements. Two complaints in relation to the affairs of Kubera Mines Ltd., were filed. It was alleged that though 360 shares were allotted to 23 shareholders, the petitioner did not disclose them in the returns he filed with the Registrar. The charge in C.C. No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory remedy of which he availed himself, the rule nisi issued in Writ Petition No. 620 of 1956 will have to be discharged, and the petition dismissed. The question that arises for determination in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 261 to 265 of 1956 where the relief asked for by the petitioner is virtually the same as in Writ Petition No. 620 of 1956 is, did the magistrate act within his jurisdiction in taking cognisance of the five complaints preferred by the Registrar. Section 190(1)( a ), Criminal Procedure Code, empowers a magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon receipt of a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. Under section 200( aa ). Criminal Procedure Code, since the complaints had been preferred by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if a prosecution was considered necessary at all, it could have been initiated only under section 141A of the Act. It is true, specified powers were vested in the Registrar by section 137 of the Act. I am, however, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to prefer a complaint as a public servant alleging that offences punishable under section 282 of the Act had been committed. There is nothing in section 141A read with section 137 among the other provisions of the Act which either in express terms or by necessary intendment forbade the Registrar from preferring a complaint to a court of competent jurisdiction that the petitioner was liable to be punished under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal. The proceedings before the magistrate were validly launched. The magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The proceedings were lawful. They are not liable to be quashed. The question I have discussed so far is not so much whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to prefer complaints to the magistrate but whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offences the commission of which was alleged in the complaints preferred by the Registrar. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even if the Registrar had jurisdiction to prefer complaints direct to the magistrate, exercise of that jurisdiction was vitiated by the failure to give the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
