Private prosecution for an old Companies Act loan breach was declined after repayment, with no further punishment ordered.

A loan granted to a director in contravention of section 86(d) of the Companies Act was treated as an illegality, and the directors were expected to take steps to end the breach. However, the Court declined to interfere on a private complainant's instance because the transaction was old and the loan had already been repaid. On the challenge to the Magistrate's acquittal without evidence, the Court noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for acquittal without examining witnesses, but did not finally rule on that point. No further prosecution or punishment was warranted on the facts, and the petitions were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should intervene at the instance of a private complainant to punish directors for contravention of section 86(d) of the Companies Act after the illegal loan had been repaid, and whether the Magistrate could acquit the accused without recording evidence.

Analysis: A loan sanctioned to a director in contravention of section 86(d) of the Companies Act was an illegality, and the directors who later refused to terminate it ought to have taken steps to end the breach. Even so, the Court treated the matter as one where intervention on a private party's instance was not after the transaction had long since occurred and the loan had been repaid. On the complaint of irregular acquittal, the Court did not finally decide the legal point but noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure contained no provision for acquitting accused persons without examining witnesses.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere and held that no further prosecution or punishment was warranted on the facts, and the challenge to the acquittal did not result in relief.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were rejected on the ground that, despite the underlying illegality, the Court would not intervene in an old and fully repaid transaction at the instance of a private complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may decline to interfere in a private prosecution for an old statutory contravention where the wrongful transaction has been completed and later remedied, even though the underlying conduct was illegal.

---