The Registrar of Companies has the right to bring to the notice of the police that cognizable offences have been committed, even though he does not have the authority to prefer a complaint to the police under the Companies Act.

ORDER :- The Agricultural and Industrial Corporation Ltd., was incorporated in 1947 under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. At the meeting of the General Body of the shareholders held on 5-3-1949 the petitioner was elected the Managing Director of the company in the place of one Narayana Rao who had been the Managing Director up to then. The petitioner claimed that on 17-7-1949 at another meeting of the General Body of the Shareholders, one A.S. Venkata Rao was elected the Managing Director, and the petitioner handed over charge of the affairs of the company to Venkata Rao.

The claim in the counter-affidavit of respondent 2 was that the petitioner functioned along with A.S. Venkata Rao till 4-5-1950, though Venkata Rao had been elected as director in charge on 17-7-1949. The petitioner further claimed that after 4-5-1950 he ceased to have anything to do with the management of the company. He was employed thereafter at Kozhikode and later at Bombay.

2. From the averments in the counter-affidavit of respondent 2, it appears that in the balance-sheet of the company, filed with the Assistant Registrar of Companies at Erode on 7-3-1949 tangible assets of the company to the extent of nearly Rs. 49,000 were disclosed. It was alleged that no balance-sheet was filed with the Registrar of Companies subsequent to that. There were charges and counter-charges as between the directors and ex-directors of the company.

On 8-6-1955 the Registrar of Companies addressed a letter to the Inspector-General of Police, Madras. A copy of that letter was filed as Ex. A, annexed to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent 2. In that letter the Registrar referred to the enquiries conducted by the Officers of his department and to the advice of the Public Prosecutor, Cuddalore, in whose opinion "there was a prima facie good case for police investigation and charging the officers of the company for offences under Ss. 406, 409 and 477-A, Penal Code. The Registrar requested the Inspector-General of Police to cause a thorough investigation to be made in the matter.

3. The letter of the Registrar dated 8-6-1955 was treated as a complaint to the police, and it was eventually registered at Kanjanur police station in South Arcot District as Cr. No. 48 of 1955, under Ss. 406, 409 and 477-A. Penal Code. In November 1955 the further investigation was transferred to the police officers in charge of the Erode police station. It was registered as Cr. No. 892 of 1955, and a copy of the complaint was lodged as the First Information Report with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode.

Further investigation into the complaint was eventually taken over by the Criminal Investigation Department, Madras, and from the affidavit of respondent 3 it appeared that respondent 3, an Inspector of Police of the Criminal Investigation Department was placed in charge of the investigation. The investigation has not yet been completed.

4. The petitioner averred in the affidavit he filed in support of the petition that he was arrested at Bombay on 29-10-1955, without a warrant and he was subsequently released on bail by the Additional Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, on 24-11-1955, but what happened further in that Court he did not say.

5. In March 1956, the petitioner applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution impleading the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, and the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Madras, as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The relief asked for was "the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting all further proceedings in Cr. No. 892 of 1955 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode........"

6. Though he had not been impleaded as a party to these proceedings at that stage, the Inspector of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, who was in charge of the investigation, swore to an affidavit on 9-7-1956 to explain what further proceedings were taken after the investigation