Police investigation may proceed despite a prior-complaint bar, and company books may be seized when relevant to the suspected offence.
A statutory bar on trial without a prior complaint does not, by itself, prevent police investigation where the offence otherwise falls within the scope of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the distinction between power to investigate and conditions for a lawful trial was treated as decisive, and investigation was upheld. A general search and seizure of a company's books was also upheld because the records were relevant to determining whether the concern was running an unlawful lottery or committing cheating. The argument that Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code could not apply to a company was rejected, and investigation into possible liability of the company and its officers was allowed.
Issues: (i) Whether investigation could be ordered under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure notwithstanding the requirement of a prior complaint for trial under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) whether a general search and seizure of the company's books was permissible; (iii) whether Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code could apply to a company.
Issue (i): Whether investigation could be ordered under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure notwithstanding the requirement of a prior complaint for trial under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Analysis: The distinction between the existence of power to try and the exercise of that power was treated as decisive. The absence of a complaint required for the valid trial of the offence did not prevent the police from investigating where the offence was otherwise within the statutory scope of Section 155(2). The objection that no court could act at all before such complaint was rejected as confounding jurisdiction with the conditions for its lawful exercise.
Conclusion: The objection failed, and investigation under Section 155(2) was held permissible.
Issue (ii): Whether a general search and seizure of the company's books was permissible.
Analysis: The books were considered relevant because the suspicion was that the concern was either operating an unlawful lottery or was engaged in cheating, and the entire set of books could assist in determining the nature of the offence, if any. The court did not accept the contention that only specific documents could be searched for in the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The search and seizure of the books was upheld.
Issue (iii): Whether Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code could apply to a company.
Analysis: The argument that the word 'whoever' excluded a corporation was rejected. It was held that, even apart from the company's position, its officers could be liable and that investigation was necessary to determine who, if anyone, had committed the offence.
Conclusion: The challenge based on inapplicability of Section 294-A to a company was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected on the technical grounds raised, and the police investigation and seizure were not interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on trial without a prior complaint does not, by itself, prevent investigation where the investigating power otherwise exists, and relevance of the documents to the suspected offence can justify their seizure.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
