Cognizance of offences under Companies Act ss. 448 and 451 on a private complaint was held impermissible because s. 448 is an offence "covered under" s. 447, attracting the second proviso to s. 212(6), which mandates that cognizance can be taken only on a written complaint by the SFIO Director or a duly authorised Central Government officer; consequently, cognizance of "repeated default" under s. 451 also failed, and proceedings under ss. 448 and 451 were quashed. Quashing of Companies Act offences did not warrant quashing IPC offences because s. 436(2) permits the Special Court to try IPC offences only while trying Companies Act offences; hence the IPC complaint was to be transferred to the competent territorial court for trial. - SC
Cognizance of offences under Companies Act ss. 448 and 451 on a private complaint was held impermissible because s. 448 is an offence "covered under" s. 447, attracting the second proviso to s. 212(6), which mandates that cognizance can be taken only on a written complaint by the SFIO Director or a duly authorised Central Government officer; consequently, cognizance of "repeated default" under s. 451 also failed, and proceedings under ss. 448 and 451 were quashed. Quashing of Companies Act offences did not warrant quashing IPC offences because s. 436(2) permits the Special Court to try IPC offences only while trying Companies Act offences; hence the IPC complaint was to be transferred to the competent territorial court for trial. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
