9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember, 1952. The case was taken up on the complaint of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies who has been authorised by the Government of India in this behalf. The petitioner's contention is that under section 141A of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913), the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies is not competent to prefer the complaint and that the only persons who can do so are the Advocate-General or the Public Prosecutor, to whom the matter may be referred by the Government. The matter was taken in revision before the District Magistrate, Kottayam, who declined to interfere. The petitioner has therefore moved this court in revision. The only point arising for decision is whether the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies was competent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 141A(1) are entitled to initiate the prosecution. For a proper appreciation of the question it is useful to refer to sections 138 to 141A of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913). Section 138 enables the Central Government to appoint Inspectors to investigate the affairs of any company and to report thereon, such appointment being made on the application of members of the company or the Registrar. Section 139 requires that such application for inspection must be supported by evidence, and under section 140 all officers of the company present and past are bound to produce books and documents in their custody relating to the company for the purpose of inspection. Section 141 provides that on the conclusion of the investigation the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion reached in that case is the one which the petitioner wants to be taken in this case. But, here the section which arises for consideration is section 141A of the Companies Act. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held in Surendra Nath Sarkar v. Kalipada Das [1940] 10 Comp. Cas. 141 , that there is nothing in the terms of section 141A to justify an inference that prosecutions by private individuals are barred. It was held that the terms of section 141A were quite different from those of sections 196 and 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which a bar is placed on the jurisdiction of criminal courts. It was further held that in the absence of a specific provision in the Companies Act, it could not be held that the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do so is vested in him and not in the State Government and can only be exercised by him at his discretion. No other person or authority can do it." I do not see how this decision can help the petitioner. As pointed out earlier there is nothing in section 141A which excludes persons other than those mentioned in the section from preferring complaints in respect of offences relating to the company. With great respect I decline to follow the view taken by the Lahore High Court in Lala Ganpat Rai v. Emperor [1948] 18 Comp. Cas. 12, as in my opinion the view taken by the High Court of Calcutta in Surendra Nath Sarkar v. Kalipada Das [1940] 10 Comp. Cas. 141 , lays down the law correctly. It follows that the Registrar was competent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
