1978 (4) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate acted illegally in condoning the application under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant-opposite party provisionally and whether he was also justified on the averments made in the petition of complaint to issue process under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), against the accused petitioners. It appears that on May 20, 1976 the complainant-opposite party No. 1 filed 11 petitions of complaint with applications for condonation of delay for 11 months starting with March, 1973. It was alleged that the accused persons are/were the officers, as directors/secretary of the company at all relevant times and have contravened the provisions of section 418(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, and have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, has not deposited the contributions of the provident fund within the statutory time as mentioned in sub-section (4) of section 418 of the Companies Act, 1956. It appears that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate considered the application, for condonation of delay and by an order dated May 20, 1976, condoned the delay provisionally with an observation that it would be open to the accused persons to canvass the bar of limitation on appearance. After such provisional condonation of delay he proceeded to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of such complaints and issued processes under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the accused persons including the accused petitioner. On the same day he transferred the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He had no power or authority to condone the delay provisionally and then to take cognizance of the offence. Accordingly, the order dated May 20, 1976, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate condoning the delay provisionally is without jurisdiction and as such must be set aside. I would have thought of sending back the matter to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate with a direction to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law from the stage the complaints were filed and prior to the passing of the orders dated May 20, 1976, had I not been satisfied that the complaints do not make out a case for issue of process under section 420 of the Companies Act against the accused persons including the accused-petitioner. Se....