STATE Vs. RIYASATI PRAKASHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 9 Criminal Appeals Nos. 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342 and 343 of 1961. In all these cases the order passed by City Magistrate, Jodhpur, is similar and the orders in all the cases are of the same date, namely, the 21st of March, 1961. THESE cases were instituted on the complaint of the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies against the Directors of Riyasati Prakashan Ltd. and others for not holding general meeting under the Marwar Companies Act, as amended from time to time. After these cases had been registered and processes were issued to the opposite parties objections were raised regarding certain points of law and non-maintainability of the prosecutions, and the Magistrate fixed these cases on the 21st of March, 1961, for hearing the objections of the opposite parties. On that date, in the beginning the Magistrate remained busy in some other work and did not take the cases, and when Mr. Amrit Raj counsel for the complainant-Registrar appeared in his court, he did not find the Magistrate there and he then went away to attend to other cases in the adjoining courts. In the meantime, the Magistrate took up these cases and he dismissed them for default under Sec. 247 Criminal Procedure Code observing that the complainant and his counsel were absent.

(2.) THE State has come in appeal in all these 9 cases, and it is urged that it was improper exercise of the discretion by the Magistrate to have dismissed these cases and acquitted the accused merely on the ground of the absence of the Registrar in the court. Reference in this behalf is made to Sec. 621-A of the Companies Act, 1956, under which the personal attendance of the Registrar in such cases is dispensed with by the statute. THE counsel for the accused persons have urged that these cases were registered before the amendment of Sec. 621 of the Companies Act and the provision of that section therefore is not attracted to them. It is further urged that in the absence of the complainant-Registrar it was the duty of the Magistrate to have dismissed the complaint and he had no other option.