SAILENDRA NATH SINHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained by two petitioners, the first of whom was one of the Directors and the second the Managing Director of the Bank of Commerce Ltd., Calcutta, against an order dismissing their prayer for, staying criminal proceedings pending against them under Ss. 406, 467 and 477, Penal Code, in the Court of a Presidency Magistrate and also against an order directing their specimen writings to be taken.

(2.) It appears that the criminal proceedings against these petitioners were started on a complaint filed by the Official Liquidator with the permission of the Company Judge of the High Court. Thereafter, there was an appeal from the order of the Company Judge which gave sanction to the Official Liquidator and the proceedings were held up. When that appeal was disposed of, the proceedings began once again. There was another prayer for stay on grounds, first, that the proceedings under Section 237, Companies Act, were pending against these petitioners and second that they have obtained special leave to appeal' to the Supreme Court from the order of this Court in the appeal from the order of the Company Judge permitting the prosecution of these petitioners. The mere fact that proceedings are pending under Section 237 of the Companies Act is no argument for staying the criminal proceedings.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee refers to Sections 45(L) and 45(G), Sub-sections 6 and 8 of the Banking Companies Amendment Act and argues that these petitioners are liable to be examined publicly in these proceedings. Mr. Sen on behalf of the State replies that no proceedings are pending against them under Sections 45 (L) and 45 (G) of the Banking companies Amendment Act and the proceedings pending against them are under Section 237, Companies Act, and they are not liable to public examination in these proceedings. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that these petitioners are liable to public examination in these proceedings and that the record of that public examination can be used as evidence against them that is really no argument for staying the criminal proceedings for that might be an argument for staying the proceedings under Section 237, Companies Act. The further fact that the petitioners have obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the order of this Court in the appeal from the order of the Company Judge is also no ground for staying the criminal proceedings which have been already delayed for more than a couple of years. The learned Magistrate was therefore fully justified in refusing to stay the criminal proceedings any further.