1999 (1) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Magistrate, Kakinada. 3. The matter came up before the learned Shri P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. with the following facts : The respondents company had filed S.T.C. No. 93 of 1995 against the petitioner under sections 622 and 630 of Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') before the IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. The petitioner's contention was that by virtue of G.O. Rt. No. 734 Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 13-3-1981, a Special Court is constituted to deal with the offences arising out of certain enactments including the Act. Therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of this contention the learned counsel had relied upon Judgment in K.K. Maheswari v. Rockhard Building Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Acts mentioned in the G.O. constituting the Special Court for trial of the offences covered by that Act. Therefore, all the offences under the Act are triable by Special Judge for Economic Offences. The Magistrate was directed to return the complaint to the 1st respondent for being presented before the Special Judge for Economic Offences. 6. Shri P.Ramkrishanam Raju, J. accepted the contention of Shri Padmanabha Reddy, the counsel for the 1st respondent, that the Special Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence only against the Act either by the company or by any officer. Such a case is not made out in the instant case. Therefore, it is not an offence against the Act either by the company or by any officer thereof so as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partment, dated 13-3-1981 is expected to deal with only Economic Offences. The offence complained of, by its very nature, cannot be termed as 'Economic Offence" though the jurisdiction to try all the offences under the Act is given to the Special Court for Economic Offences. All the offences, particularly in the nature of the offence complained of, cannot be tried by the Special Court for Economic Offences. According to Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the offence. 11. We cannot accede to this contention. It is true that what is an 'Economic Offence' is not defined anywhere. The words 'Economic Offence' indicate that there is offence in relation to money or property, or the goods and services which have exchange....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We have already mentioned that this argument found favour with the learned Single Judge who referred this matter to the Bench. 14. We are again not impressed by this argument. The petitioner might have ceased to be the Managing Director. That itself is not sufficient to say that he is 'not the officer' of the company. The ex-officer is also obliged to produce all the official records in his custody pertaining to the company before he is discharged from the allegation. Therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge: "It is contended by Sri Padmanabha Reddy and rightly in my view, that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence committed against the Act either by the company or any officer. In this case ....