Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAJAMANNAR,PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR
In re.M.Vaidyanathan.
Versus
.
Writ Appeal No. 126 of 1956
Decided On : 4 October, 1956
Investigation - Indian Companies Act - Scope of S. 282-A and Offences under Indian Penal Code - The court held that the investigation by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras was not barred by the provisions of S. 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, corresponding to S. 630 of Act I of 1956, as the offences under Ss. 406, 409, and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code were different and more serious than the offence contemplated under S. 282-A. The court emphasized the distinction in scope and severity of punishments for the respective offences, allowing the investigation to continue.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant argued that the investigation by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras was barred by the provisions of S. 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, corresponding to S. 630 of Act I of 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the investigation was not barred as the offences under Ss. 406, 409, and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code were different and more serious than the offence contemplated under S. 282-A. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Scope of S. 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913 and its applicability to the investigation of alleged offences under Ss. 406, 409, and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction in scope and severity of punishments for the respective offences, allowing the investigation to continue.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
RAJAMANNAR, C. J. :- Though Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, took a great deal of our time, he was unable to convince us that the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., against which this appeal has been filed is wrong.
2. The point which was strenuously pressed upon us was that the investigation by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras was barred by the provisions of S. 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, corresponding to S. 630 of Act I of 1956. The investigation is being made in respect of alleged offences punishable under Ss. 406, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. We have no hesitation in holding that offences under these sections are different from the offence contemplated under S. 282-A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. There can be no bar therefore to the investigation. Section 282-A, in our opinion, relates to an offence much less serious than an offence under S. 406 or 409 or 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. This is made evident by the fact that a person found guilty under S. 282-A can be punished only with fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000, Whereas a person found guilty under S. 406, I. P. C., can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both; and a person found guilty under S. 409, I. P. C., can be awarded a more severe punishment. For the offence under S. 477-A the punishment can extend to imprisonment for seven years. We agree with the learned Judge. Rajagopalan, J., that the scope of S. 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, is quite distinct and different from the scope of Ss. 406, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no ground therefore for preventing the police officer from continuing the investigation with which he had been entrusted.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
