AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bilal Nazki, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
These appeals are filed against the common order passed by the Company Judge in C.P. Nos. 94, 105 and 106 of 2001, dated 7-6-2002.
The allegation of the company petitioners against the respondents was that they had violated the provisions contained in Section 108A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity ''the Act''), which imposes restriction of acquisition of certain shares and since there has been violation of provision contained in Section 108A, an offence had been committed by the respondents in terms of Section 108I and could be punished with the imprisonment for a term which could extend up to three years, or with fine, up to Rs. 50,000, or with both.
The learned Company Judge gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the Magistrate.
The learned Counsel submits that in case of violation of Section 108A, it is the Company Court which has got jurisdiction to come to the conclusion that whether there is any violation and if there is any violation, the Company Court itself can proceed in terms of Section 108I and punish the accused.
The course suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not permissible under the provisions of the Act. The ''Court'' is defined u/s 2(11) of the Act, which states that "(a) with respect to any matter relating to a company (other than any offence against this Act), the Court having jurisdiction under this Act with respect to that matter relating to that company, as provided in Section 10(b)...". This makes it clear that the ''Court'' means a Company Court having jurisdiction under the Act with respect to matters relating to the company as provided u/s 10, but it excludes such a ''Court'' from having jurisdiction with respect to offences against the Act. It is further clear by Section 622 of the Act, which lays down "No Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence against this Act. Reading Sections 622 and 2(11) of the Act, it becomes quite clear that any offence committed under the Act or against the provisions of the Act, have to be tried by a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of first class. Therefore, in our view, the learned Company Judge did not pass any orders, which needs intervention of this Court.
The appeals are dismissed. No costs.