MRITYUNJOY CHAKRAVARTTI Vs. PROVAT KUMAR PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule against an order of Mr. A. Mukherjee, Magistrate, First Class, Nadia, rejecting a contention by an accused, who has been prosecuted under Section 409, Penal Code, that, as the provisions of Section 237, Companies Act, had not been observed, the complaint by the liquidator was not valid and the complaint should be dismissed.

(2.) This matter was before me on a previous occasion. A complaint had then been filed by another person, and an objection had been taken to his complaint. On that occasion I found it not necessary to pass any specific order, as it was stated that there would be no difficulty in. getting a complaint filed by the Official Liquidator of the Bank in question, namely, the Bengal Bank Ltd., who had been appointed after the order of winding up had been passed. The present complaint, therefore, was filed by the Official Liquidator who has been given by the Court general power under Section 179, Companies Act, by an order, dated 16-1-1951. The power includes power "to institute any suit or prosecution or other legal proceeding civil or criminal in the name and on behalf of the said Bank."

(3.) It is contended that this power relates only to prosecution of what may be called outsiders, and that Section 237, Companies Act, relates to offences committed by officers of the Bank. It is further contended that under Section 237, no prosecution can be made unless the court has given a direction, for one to be started. In my opinion, this contention is not valid. I cannot, however, agree with the view expressed by the learned Magistrate, which is to the effect that Section 237 relates only to offences punishable under the Indian Companies Act.