SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Cal) 72

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
DHIRENDRA NATH BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
JAMINI KANTA MITRA - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  1483  Of  1956
Decided On : MARCH 28, 1957

Advocates Appeared:
AJIT KUMAR DUTT, J.M.BANERJEE, Jagannath Cangopadhyay, MONOHAR CHATTERJI, PRASUN CHANDRA GHOSH

Prosecutions for offences under the Indian Penal Code are not subject to the limitations and requirements of the Companies Act.

Headnote:

COMPANIES ACT - PROSECUTION - OFFENCES UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE - ORDER OF COMPANY JUDGE - NECESSITY - COMPANIES ACT, 1956, SECTIONS 621, 644, 645, 648 - COMPANIES ACT, 1913, SECTION 237 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1898, SECTION 198.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a former Chief Accountant of the Bengal Textiles Association, was accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including forgery, fabrication of accounts, and conspiracy. The complaints were filed by the official liquidator of the Association, who had been authorized to do so by the Court. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground that they had been instituted without an order of the Company Judge, as required by the Companies Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proceedings were maintainable. It held that the provisions of the Companies Act relating to the prosecution of offences against the Act did not apply to offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Court also held that the order of the Company Judge was not necessary for the institution of the complaints, as anyone could prefer a complaint for offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Issues: 1. Whether an order of the Company Judge is necessary for the institution of criminal proceedings for offences under the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the provisions of the Companies Act relating to the prosecution of offences against the Act apply to offences under the Indian Penal Code?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order of the Company Judge is not necessary for the institution of criminal proceedings for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The provisions of the Companies Act relating to the prosecution of offences against the Act do not apply to offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Final Decision: The Court discharged the rule and allowed the proceedings against the petitioner to continue.

DEBABRATA MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta and on the opposite party to show cause why certain proceedings under the Indian Penal Code pending against the petitioner should not be quashed or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.

( 2 ) IN November 1946, the petitioner was appointed Chief Accountant of the Bengal Textiles Association, Calcutta. On 8th September, 1945, Ordinance No. XXXII of 1945 had been promulgated to incorporate and regulate the Bengal Textiles Association for the purpose of improving procurement and whole-sale distribution of piece goods in the Province of Bengal as it then was. By an order of this Court on the Original Side dated 30th August, 1948, the Association was directed to be wound up, and Sri Bhagawati Prasad Khaitan and Sri Uma Prosad Mookerjee were appointed official liquidators. On 21st May. 1951, the official liquidators presented an application to this Court for an order on the petitioner and several other persons to pay and restore to the Association diverse sums of money and property misappropriated and misapplied and for directions for steps, civil and criminal, against the persons responsible for such misappropriation and misapplication. In December, 1951. The aforesaid liquidators were discharged, and Sri Rameswarlal Nopany was appointed official liquidator. On 8tn September, 1955, Sri Rameswarlal Nopany filed an application to this Court praying that he may have liberty to prosecute the petitioner and several officers of the Bengal Textiles Association for offences of forgery, using as genuine togged documents, fabrication and falsification of books of accounts of the Association and conspiracy to commit those offences. On the same date, S. R. Das Gupta J. made the following order :"it is ordered that leave be and the same is hereby granted to the said applicant to start criminal proceedings against (1) Dhirendra Nath Banerjee, (2) Dilip Kumar Mitra, (3) G. Mukhoty, (4) Amitava Roy, (5) Atam Prakas Grover, (6) Malin Majumdar and (7) Pushpendu Ghosh under such sections of the Indian Penal Code as he may be advised. "as against the aforesaid order of S. R. Das Gupta, J. an appeal was preferred which was heard and disposed of by the learned Chief Justice and Sarkar J. The appea1 was dismissed on the ground inter alia that the order of the learned Judge (S. R. Das Gupta, J.) was not in fact an order directing the liquidator to prosecute the petitioner or any body else. The learned Chief Justice who delivered the Judgment was of the opinion that the order under appeal was not an order under Section 237 (1) Of the Companies Act 1913 properly so-called and could not be held to be appealable as such. The learned Chief Justice further observed,"the mere fact that a reference to Section 237 was made at some stage cannot make the order an order under that section, if having regard to its nature and contents, it cannot be such an order. . . The order under appeal here is not an order directing the prosecution of the appellant. It is merely an order granting leave to the liquidator to prosecute the appellant under such sections of the Indian Penal Code, if any, as he might be advised to proceed under. No prosecution is directed, and indeed no prosecution may ever take place. "

( 3 ) THEREAFTER the complainant opposite party was ordered and authorised to file complaints on behalf of the Bengal Textiles Association (in liquidation) represented by the official liquidator. In all, four cases were filed in each of which the petitioner was named as an accused with other persons under Sections 120-B, 476, 477-A and 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) ON receipt of the complaints the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate directed enquiries to be held, and thereafter on receipt of reports he issued processes against the petitioner and others in each of these four cases. The petitioner app












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top