https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97153 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. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:11:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97153 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 10 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97153