The NCLT/NCLAT qualifies as a 'Court' under Section 195 Cr.P.C., allowing them to exercise jurisdiction regarding contempt applications under Section 340.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.04.2024:

1. Very short issue which is involved consideration, herein before this Tribunal, is regards maintainability of proceedings as drawn under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant herein being aggrieved against the rejection of IA/1126/2023, had preferred this Company Appeal. By virtue of the Impugned Order dated 24.07.2023, as a consequence of the impugned decision rendered by the learned Adjudicating Authority, on the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, on 24^th July 2023, the National Company Law Tribunal, has taken a view that IA as preferred by the Appellant under Section 340 (1) Cr. P. C. before it, would not be sustainable before the Tribunal by drawing an opinion, that the Tribunal since being a Special Court, as per the Provisions contained under Section 236(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, hence, the same would lack the power to draw the proceedings of Contempt under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Heard the Appellant in person and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, after having perused the Impugned Judgment dated 24.07.2023 under challenge, and the entire records.

3. The contention of the Appellant in person, is that the view expressed by the Learned Tribunal while limiting its power of not to conduct a trial or enquiry, regards the penalties as per the Powers vested, in it is limited to under Chapter VII of IBC of 2016, would absolutely be contrary to the general principles of law as applicable in the context of the Provisions contained under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The view expressed, that as under Section 236(1) of IBC of 2016, the offences could be only tried by the Special Court, which would be the offences falling to be under Chapter 20 of the Companies Act , and not otherwise, is not acceptable by the Appellant.

4. The simple reason is that and as it has been argued by the Appellant in person, that on the basis of the provisions contained under sub section 3 of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it deals with as to what the term ‘Court’ would mean in a legal corollary. The court under Sub Section 3 of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., would be inclusive of the Tribunals as are constituted under the Central or the State Act, and since the Tribunal are declared by the Act to be the adjudicating body and a creation of Statute, which are for the purposes of adjudicating a right as per Law. It is contended by the Appellant that under Sub Section 4 of Section 424 of the Companies Act , that the NCLT and NCLAT are the “Courts” since, they are holding a Judicial Proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 of I.P.C. and thus in the light of the provisions contained under Section 196 of Indian Penal Code. The NCLT and the NCLAT will be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 under Chapter 26 of the Cr.P.C., which contains provisions under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. which will grant an adjudicatory power to the NCLT itself to deal with the Application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The logic behind it is that, if the provisions contained under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, which is the general Criminal Procedure is taken into consideration, the legislature has used the word, that the Proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., in the cases as included under Section 195 can be drawn by the “Court itself” the question with regards to the act complained is, whether act would be covered under Section 195 and has been committed. That is why the Legislature in its wisdom has used the word “any Court”. The language used under the procedural law contained under the code of Criminal