Company inspection disclosures may be reported to police for cognizable offences; police investigation and search warrants were upheld.

Company inspection under the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as non-exclusive, so disclosure of cognizable IPC offences in an inspection report did not prevent the Company Law Board from informing the police. The police route under the Criminal Procedure Code remained available for cognizable offences, and the existence of company-law investigation machinery did not by itself create an Article 14 violation. Search warrants issued for investigation were upheld because the Magistrate had applied judicial satisfaction on relevant material, and section 96 required necessity rather than a written statement of reasons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Companies Act, 1956 impliedly barred the Company Law Board from laying information before the police for investigation and prosecution of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code disclosed in an inspection under section 209(4); (ii) whether resort to the police route instead of an investigation under sections 235 to 242 of the Companies Act, 1956 violated article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the search warrants issued under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the Companies Act, 1956 impliedly barred the Company Law Board from laying information before the police for investigation and prosecution of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code disclosed in an inspection under section 209(4).

Analysis: The statutory scheme for company inspection and investigation under the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be exhaustive only in relation to the matters it specifically covered. The inspection under section 209(4) produced an administrative report, and the Act contained no provision requiring that every disclosure of possible criminality in relation to company affairs must culminate only in an investigation under sections 235 to 242. Section 242 was treated as a culmination of an investigation already ordered under sections 235 or 237, not as an exclusive route for all cognizable offences. The laying of information before the police was regarded as incidental to the powers of the Company Law Board and not as prohibited by implication. The Criminal Procedure Code remained applicable to cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion: The Companies Act, 1956 did not bar the Company Law Board from reporting cognizable IPC offences to the police, and the police investigation was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether resort to the police route instead of an investigation under sections 235 to 242 of the Companies Act, 1956 violated article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The two procedures were held to operate in different fields. An investigation under the Companies Act was discretionary, could be ordered only in the circumstances specified by the statute, and culminated in prosecution under section 242. A police investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code dealt with cognizable offences and carried its own safeguards. The choice to place the matter before the police was therefore not treated as discriminatory merely because a company-law investigation might have offered a different procedural setting. No unequal treatment was shown to arise from the statutory choice made in the present case.

Conclusion: The action did not infringe article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the search warrants issued under section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The Magistrate had examined the police officer on oath and was satisfied that the documents were necessary for investigation and were unlikely to be produced voluntarily. Section 96 required judicial satisfaction as to necessity, not a written statement of reasons. Once the warrant had been issued on relevant material and executed in the course of a lawful investigation, no ground existed for interference in certiorari.

Conclusion: The search warrants were valid and not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because neither the company-law scheme nor article 14 prevented police investigation into cognizable offences disclosed during inspection, and the search warrants stood sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company inspection under the Companies Act discloses cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, the statutory company-law machinery is not an exclusive bar to informing the police, and police investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code may proceed unless the later statute clearly excludes it.

---