K. B. SIDDAPPA. J.

( 1 ) AS common question of law arises in these two cases, they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 3570/95 is filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C to quashthe proceedings in S. T. C. No. 93/95 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Kakinada.

( 3 ) THE matter came up before the learned Sri P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. ,with the following facts:- the respondent company had filed S. T. C. No. 93/95 against the petitioner under Sections 622 and 630 of Companies Act before the IV Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Kakinada. The petitioner s contention was that by virtue of G. O. Rt. No. 734, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 13-3-1981, a Special court is constituted to deal with the offences arising out of certain enactments including the Companies Act. Therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of this contention the learned counsel had relied upon the judgment in K. K. Maheswari vs. M/s. Rockhard building Materials Limited.

( 4 ) IT is also contended that the allegation made against the petitioner is that he did not produce the Minutes Book and Attendance Registers of the board meetings and General Meetings. The maximum penalty provided under sections 143 or 162 of the Act is only a fine of Rs. 500/ -. Therefore, there cannot be any higher charge against the petitioner for not producing the records when the same is not maintained. It was also contended that non-production of record may at best amount to non-maintenance of the record. The record cannot be included in the term property .

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the 1st respondent Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy had submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 630 of the Act provides sentence of imprisonment for non-production of property. This sub-section applies to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner had withheld the account books. According to him, Section 630 of the Act is broadly worded so as to include in its sweep any property whether movable or immovable, belonging to the company. In support of his contention he relied upon the Judgment in Beguram vs. Jaipur Udhyog Limited. He had also submitted that the Magistrate is competent to try the offence.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing both the sides, Sri P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. , differed from the view taken by Sri Justice Panduranga Rao, rendered in the case (1) referred above. In that case, Sri Panduranga Rao, J. held that the Companies Act, 1956 is one of the Central Acts mentioned in the G. O. constituting the Special Court for trial of the offences covered by that Act. Therefore, all the offences under the Companies Act are triable by Special Judge for Economic Offences. The magistrate was directed to return the complaint to the 1st respondent for being presented before the Special Judge for Economic offences.

( 7 ) SRI P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. accepted the contention of Sri Padmanabha Reddy, Counsel for the 1st respondent, that the Special Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence only against the Act either by the Company or by any officer. Such a case is not made out in the instant case. Therefore, it is not an offence against the Act either by the Company or by any officer thereof so as to attract the jurisdiction of Special Court.

( 8 ) IN view of the above divergent opinions, the matter is referred before this Bench.

( 9 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 527/95 is filed against the Judgment passed in CC. No. 31/86 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad West and South, Rangareddy District. In this case, the I. D. L. Chemical Limited had filed a complaint against the accused who had worked as Managing Director of the Company from 1962 to 31-3-1984. He was in occupation of house bearing no. 7-2-21-A, Begumpet, Hyderabad along with furniture. The services of the accused were terminated. However, he failed to handover the house inspite of legal notice. This constituted an offence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document