https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97675 Section 141A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was construed as an enabling provision read with the investigation scheme in sections 138 to 141. The Court held that, although the Central Government could refer a reported offence to the Advocate-General or Public Prosecutor for prosecution, the section did not expressly exclude complaints by other persons. Because the statute contained no words barring private prosecution, and unlike other provisions did not confine criminal cognizance to named authorities, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies was competent to prefer the complaint. The objection to maintainability therefore failed. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:15:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97675 Section 141A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 was construed as an enabling provision read with the investigation scheme in sections 138 to 141. The Court held that, although the Central Government could refer a reported offence to the Advocate-General or Public Prosecutor for prosecution, the section did not expressly exclude complaints by other persons. Because the statute contained no words barring private prosecution, and unlike other provisions did not confine criminal cognizance to named authorities, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies was competent to prefer the complaint. The objection to maintainability therefore failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97675