Can the High Court take cognizance of all the offences under the Companies Act and try those offences is the question which arises for consideration. A petition is filed by the petitioner in the winding up petition C.P. No. 18 of 1999 praying that this Court may take cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by the Managing Director under Section 629 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). There is a further prayer in the petition to conduct an enquiry as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. about the alleged commission of the offence under Section 193 read with Sections 191, 199 and 51 IPC and also to direct an officer of this Court to make a complaint to a Magistrate having Jurisdiction.

2. According to the petitioner, the Managing Director of the company filed affidavits and counter affidavits in the case containing false statement made with the intention of subverting justice. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, certain statements contained in the affidavits and counter affidavits are mentioned which according to the petitioner are false statements. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made against him by way of filing the petition.

3. One of the prayers in the petition being to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 629 of the Act, the question which arises for consideration is whether this Court can take cognizance of the offence, punishable under the above section, alleged to have been committed by the respondent. Incidentally, the question whether the Company Court can try the offence punishable under Section 629 of the Act also arises for consideration since if it is found that this Court can take cognizance of the offence, the trial of the case in which the allegation is that the respondent committed offence punishable under Section 629 of the Act also has to be conducted in this Court.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Company Court can take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 629 of the Act and also conduct trial of the case. It is maintained by the learned counsel that since Section 446 of the Act gives powers to the High Court to entertain of dispose of any suit or proceedings by or against the company, this Court can entertain criminal proceedings by or against the company, In support of the above stand taken by the petitioner, a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Khosla Fans (India) P. Ltd., (in Liquidation), In re v. Ramesh Khosla, (1983) 53 Com Cas 858 : (1981 Tax LR 244) was cited in which it was held that Section 446 of the Act is a special provision which has vested the High Court with jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any suit or proceedings by or against the company and that the prosecution sought to be launched by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the company is a proceeding by the company against the acts of the office bearers. On making the above observation, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in suits and proceedings including criminal proceedings in appropriate cases by or against the company filed by the Official Liquidator. A reading of the judgment of the above High Court would indicate that the Court held the view that criminal proceedings also can be had in the Company Court on the basis of what is stated in Section 446 of the Act.

5. In the above case which came up for consideration before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was contended that the words "in suit or proceedings by or against the company" are wide enough to include criminal proceedings launched by way of a complaint at the instance of the Official Liquidator. The Court considered the question whether the provisions of Section 446(2) of the Act do not vest any special jurisdiction in the Company Court to entertain or dispose of complaints which are filed for violation of the provisions and for t