Distinct IPC offences can proceed despite Chartered Accountants Act penalties; statutory complaint requirements bar only proceedings under the Act itself.

The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 does not confer immunity from prosecution for distinct IPC offences arising from the same conduct; the bar is only against double punishment for the same offence, not simultaneous proceedings where the ingredients differ. Offences such as cheating by personation, forgery, use of forged documents, and counterfeit seals remain punishable under the IPC if made out. Section 28 of the Act governs prosecution under the Act itself and bars charges under the Act without the required statutory complaint, but it does not bar inquiry into or prosecution for IPC offences. Section 195 CrPC was held inapplicable on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penal provisions in the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 bar prosecution for cognate offences under the Indian Penal Code when the same conduct also constitutes IPC offences; (ii) whether cognizance for contravention of the Act and prosecution under the IPC were barred for want of a complaint under section 28 of the Act or under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the penal provisions in the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 bar prosecution for cognate offences under the Indian Penal Code when the same conduct also constitutes IPC offences.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 24, 24A, 25 and 26 of the Act creates specific penalties for false representation as a chartered accountant, misuse of the Institute's name or seal, unauthorised practice by companies, and unauthorised signing of documents. The expression "without prejudice to any other proceedings" shows that the Act does not confer immunity from prosecution under other laws where the same conduct also answers the ingredients of a distinct IPC offence. The bar is against punishment twice for the same offence, not against simultaneous prosecution for distinct offences having different ingredients. The offences of cheating by personation, forgery, use of forged documents and counterfeit seals are not created by the Act and remain punishable under the IPC if their ingredients are made out.

Conclusion: Prosecution under the IPC is not barred merely because the same conduct may also attract penalties under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Issue (ii): Whether cognizance for contravention of the Act and prosecution under the IPC were barred for want of a complaint under section 28 of the Act or under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 28 of the Act restricts prosecution under the Act itself and requires a complaint by or under the order of the Council or the Central Government. In the absence of a special procedure in the Act, the ordinary procedure under the Code applies to proceedings for contravention of the Act. Section 195 CrPC was held inapplicable because the acts complained of before the income-tax and trade tax authorities did not fall within the meaning of "Court" for that provision, and the alleged offences were not confined to offences requiring a court complaint. The trial court could therefore examine whether the complaint disclosed IPC offences, while no charge could be framed under sections 24, 24A or 26 of the Act without a complaint under section 28.

Conclusion: The absence of a complaint under section 28 barred charges under the Act, but it did not bar inquiry into or prosecution for IPC offences on the facts alleged.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the High Court's view of an absolute bar was rejected, the matter was sent back for consideration of IPC offences, and prosecution under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 remained unavailable without the statutory complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same conduct constitutes distinct offences under the CharterAccountants Act and the IPC, the Act does not bar IPC prosecution unless the statute expressly excludes it; section 28 restricts prosecution under the Act alone, while the test is whether the offences have different ingredients.

---