Complaint by Assistant Registrar valid where Companies Act imposed no exclusive complainant requirement for cognizance.

A complaint under the Indian Companies Act was not confined to the District Magistrate or a complaint made only at his instance. In the absence of any statutory bar restricting cognizance to a specified complainant, the ordinary rule applied that any person could set the criminal law in motion. Regulations framed under section 248(2) assigned investigatory and prosecutorial functions to the Registrar and Assistant Registrar, but Regulation 14(b) was only a departmental direction and not a condition precedent to cognizance. A complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar was therefore valid, and the acquittal based on want of proper complaint was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint for offences under the Indian Companies Act had to be filed only by the District Magistrate or at his instance under Regulation 14(b), or whether a complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar was valid.

Analysis: The Act contained no provision barring cognizance unless the complaint was made by a specified person. In the absence of such a restriction, the ordinary rule applied that any person could set the criminal law in motion. The regulations framed under section 248(2) of the Indian Companies Act assigned investigatory and prosecutorial duties to the Registrar and Assistant Registrar, but they did not exclude the right of a citizen or other person to lodge a complaint. Regulation 14(b) was treated as a direction for departmental action and not as a condition precedent to the court's power to take cognizance.

Conclusion: The complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar was valid, the acquittal on the ground of absence of proper complaint was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for disposal according to law.

---