2001 (3) TMI 930

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dure, 1973 to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No. 34 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. 2. Petitioners 1 to 3 herein are A.1 to A.3 respectively in the aforesaid Calendar Case. The 1st petitioner herein is the Managing Director, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the Directors of Karni Chit Funds (P.) Ltd. which is a company registe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners-Accused is that the complainant is not a shareholder of the company and, therefore, the learned Special Judge ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint in view of the mandatory provision contained in section 621 of the Act. 6. Shri P. Shiv Kumar, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant, however, submits that the father of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ernment in that behalf." A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly shows that prosecution for the offences under the Act (except offences under section 545) cannot be initiated by any person other than a Registrar, or a shareholder of the company or a person authorised by the Central Government. The petitioner is neither a Registrar nor a person authorised by the Central Government. Und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X