Chakravartti, J. - (1.) The petitioner No. 1, before me, Chitta Ranjan Gaha, is the managing director of a bank, called the New National Bank Limited, and petitioner No. 2, N. Chakravarty, appears to hold a multiplicity of offices, seeing that he describes himself as "director, chief controller and chief auditor" of the bank. The present rule is directed against an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, refusing to stay certain proceedings which the petitioners asked to be stayed on the ground that they were covered by a stay order passed by this Court on its Original Side under Section 153(5) of the Companies Act.
(2.) The material facts are the following: On 20th May, 1947, the New National Bank Limited made an application on the Original Side of this Court under Section 153 of the Companies Act and on the same day obtained a stay order from Edgley, J. That order was in the following terms:- "And it is further ordered that until the final determination of this application or until the further order of this Court the commencement and/or continuation of all suits and proceedings against the said company, its directors and officers in the meantime be and the same are hereby stayed."
(3.) On 13th July, 1947, the opposite party filed a complaint before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, charging the petitioners and one B. Majumdar with offences under Sections 403, 406 and 409/114 of the Penal Code. The substance of his complaint was that he had a current account with the bank and the petitioners, as officers of the bank, had purchased a number of shares for him and on his instructions with money drawn from his current account. In spite, however, of repeated requests they had not delivered the shares to him, although under the contract between the parties the shares were liable to be delivered on demand. On this application being made, warrants were issued against the accused persons under Section 409 of the Penal Code, and a search warrant was also issued for the seizure of the shares concerned as also certain books of the company. The petitioners surrendered on 26th July, 1947, and were released on bail. On 30th September, they made an application, praying that the proceedings might be stayed and the search warrant recalled in view of the order passed by Edgley, J. Thereupon the search warrant was recalled and a date was fixed for the hearing of the application. On 28th August, 1947, the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, decided that the order of the High Court did not touch a case like the one he had before him and therefore it should proceed. He directed fresh search warrants to issue. Thereupon the petitioners moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.;