The interesting, though knotty, question raised for consideration in this petition are (1) whether the Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Madras, is a "person aggrieved by the offence" as envisaged under S. 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) whether a Court is entitled to take cognizance of offence under Ss. 3 and 7 read with S. 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in exercise of its powers under S. 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), after having first taken on file a complaint by the Registrar, without considering the question of limitation. These questions have come to be raised in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner who is working in the Corporation of Madras as an Ayah, was conducting a Chit Fund for Rs. 1, 000/-. One of the subscribes reported to the Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Madras (referred to in short as Registrar) on March, 27, 1976, that the petitioner had not paid the chit amount due to her. During the investigation of the report the Registrar found the petitioner had conducted the chit without regi