JUDGMENT

Tudball, J. - This matter and Revisions Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 1912 arise out of the following circumstances:

2. The three applicants, Lala Dina Nath, Lala Kashi Ram and Lala Hazari Lal, and one Lala Debi Dat are the Directors of the Union Indian Sugar Mills Company, Ld., Cawnpore. They were placed upon their trial on the complaint of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on a charge u/s 74 of the Companies Act VI of 1832, no balance-sheet having been filed with the Registrar within the time fixed or within the extension allowed by him, the offence being that of knowingly and wilfully authorising or permitting the default mentioned above. The case was tried summarily by a Magistrate of the first class, who acquitted Lala Debi Dat and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 on each of the other Directors. The three latter have come here in revision. A great deal has been said about the merits of the case, but in view of the order which I am going to pass, I abstain from making any remarks thereon. It is urged that the Magistrate had no power to try the case summarily. With this, I cannot agree. u/s 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate has power to try summarily all offences not punishable with death, transportation or imprisonment for a term exceeding six months. The word offence is defined in the Code, "as any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force." Section 5 of the Code lays down that "All offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure." Clause (2) of the section lays down that All offences tinder any other law shall be similarly dealt with according to the same provisions, bat subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or the place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." There is nothing in the Companies Act which lays down that a Magistrate having summary powers shall not try an offence under that Act in a summary manner. It is true that u/s 252 all offences under the Act may be tried by any Magistrate of the first class unless the period of imprisonment to which the offender is liable exceeds that which such officer is competent to award under the law for the time being in force in the place where he is employed. When the period of imprisonment provided by the Act exceeds the period that may be awarded by such officer, the offender shall be committed for trial to the Court of Sessions. There is nothing in this portion of the section which takes away the Magistrate's power to try summarily cases within his jurisdiction, nor does the second clause of the section take away any such power. As a matter of fact, a Presidency Magistrate has power to try all cases under the Act in a summary way irrespective of the sentence he may impose. Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the limit to the sentence of imprisonment which may be awarded at a summary trial. There is nothing in Chapter XXII which limits the amount of fine which may be imposed in a summary trial. The sections which deal with appeals in the Code, however, show that a sentence of fine exceeding Rs. 50 is an appealable sentence; but though it cannot be said that the Magistrate has been guilty of any illegality in trying the case summarily, there are very good grounds why he should not have done so. In the first place, the penalty which may be imposed u/s 74 is one of Rs. 1,000 neither more nor less. An examination of the Act would show that everywhere (with two exceptions), where the Act lays down a penalty for an offence in the shape of a fine, it clearly lays down a maximum, which is not to be exceeded and Sections 25, 55, 57 and 66 are all instances of this. In Section 66(1), a Limited Company which does not paint or affix its name in the manner directed by the Act is held liable to a penalty not exceedin