J.N.Hore, J. - (1.) This is an application under section 401 and section. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 27th December, 1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C/3532 of 1984 pending in his court and for quashing further proceeding of the said case.
(2.) On 27.12.84 the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the petitioner M/s. Bengal Tools Limited and six of its Directors alleging commission of an offence under Rule-11 read with Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975 and section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956. On 27.12.84 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta took cognizance of the alleged offence and issued process under section 58A of the Companies Act read with Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975 against the petitioner/company and six Directors fixing 14th February, 1985 for appearance. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved this court in revision and obtained the present Rule.
(3.) Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted mechanically without application of judicial mind. The impugned order was passed upon a cyclostyled order sheet supplied by the prosecution embodying the order in pursuance whereof cognizance was taken and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In support of his contention he has referred to the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court presided over by P. C Barooah, J, as he then was in Criminal Revision No. 1475 of 1979 (M/s. Bharat Sugar Mills Limited., v. The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal). It appears that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the impugned order on a cyclostyled order sheet embodying the order. Only the names of the accused persons and sections of the Companies Act and the date of appearance were filled up. The names of the accused persons and sections of the Companies Act are written in a different ink and the order number and the date of appearance which apparently were written by the court officer are in a different ink. So the contention of Mr. Sengupta that the cyclostyled order sheet embodying the order was supplied by the prosecution and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate merely signed on it without application of his mind has considerable force. Be that as it may even if it be assumed that for the sake of convenience the order sheet was cyclostyled by the office of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under his instructions, it appears from another circumstance that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not apply his mind and acted mechanically. For violation of the provisions of Rule 3A, the company or its Directors are liable for prosecution under Rule-11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975. The complainant also prayed for summons under Rule.-11 read with Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975. Process should, therefore, have been issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Rule-11 read with Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules 1975. This was not done and the process was issued under section 58A of the Companies Act read with Rule 3A. It clearly shows that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted mechanically without proper application of his mind. On this ground alone, this application is to be allowed.;