TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Challenge to Summary Trial Procedure under Indian Companies Act 1913</h1> <h3>PD. Shamdasani Versus Sir HP. Mody</h3> The Court dismissed the application challenging the Presidency Magistrate's procedure in trying an offence under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 in a ... Certain offences triable summarily in presidency towns Issues:Interference with the procedure of the Presidency Magistrate in trying an offence under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act of 1913 in a summary manner without recording the evidence in full.Analysis:The application in revision sought to challenge the procedure of the Presidency Magistrate in trying an offence under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act of 1913 in a summary manner without recording the evidence in full. The prosecutor contended that this procedure was illegal, citing Section 278(2) of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, which allows summary conviction for offences punishable by fine only. The argument centered around whether this section restricts the powers of Presidency Magistrates to try only fine-only offences in a summary manner. The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 278 and concluded that it was an enabling provision rather than restrictive. The section aimed to extend the powers of Presidency Magistrates under the Criminal Procedure Code but limited the extension to offences punishable with fine only. The Court emphasized that the wording of the section supported this interpretation and highlighted that all offences under the Act were deemed non-cognizable, further reinforcing their conclusion.The Court also addressed the argument that due to the volume of evidence and time constraints, it was inappropriate for the Magistrate to conduct a summary trial without recording full evidence. While referencing a previous case where the Court interfered due to the Magistrate potentially not fully remembering the evidence, the Court noted conflicting decisions where the High Court declined to interfere in matters within the Magistrate's discretion. In this case, the Court found that the Magistrate had judicially exercised discretion, fully considering the matter and providing reasons for the summary trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, emphasizing the importance of timely case disposal after the prolonged duration of the proceedings, spanning approximately thirteen years.In a concurring opinion, Sen, J., and Lokur, J., agreed with the analysis and decision of the Court, further solidifying the dismissal of the application challenging the Presidency Magistrate's procedure in trying the offence under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 in a summary manner without recording full evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
