Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Point No. 3.- Mr. Ghosh has argued that the offence if any, would be an offence under Section 182 Indian Penal Code and as such cognizance could be taken not on the complaint filed by the complainant, but by the public servant concerned, namely, the Registrar of Firms, in accordance with Section 195(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Mishra on the other hand has contended that it is not an offence under Section 182 Indian Penal Code at all and as such the provision of Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code would not be attracted. Section 182 Indian Penal Code, leaving aside the illustrations reads as follows;

13. In this connection I have also examined Sections 58 to 60 of the Act. When a firm is registered, an application for registration has to be made under Section 58. The details required in the application mentioned in Sub-section (11 of Section 58. The partners or their agents are required to sign those details Verification is also necessary. The registration is done by the Registrar under Section 59. This section requires the satisfaction of the Registrar, but that satisfaction is limited to the compliance of provisions of Section 58. That means the Registrar has only to be satisfied that the requirements of Section 58 are there and the application has been made in the proper form. He has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the statements made therein. Then again if an alteration is made in the name of the firm or in the location of the place of business, a statement has to be forwarded to the Registrar under Section 60(1). Again as required by Section 60(2) the Registrar has to be satisfied only to the extent that the requirements of Sub-section (1) have been complied, and nothing more than that. In this consequence when Section 63 is examined, there is no mention of even that limited satisfaction for the Registrar, as mentioned in Sections 59 and 60 of the Act. Obviously, therefore, on receipt of a notice under Section 63(1), the Registrar has nothing to do but to make the necessary entries as given in the notice. He is not called upon by the law to satisfy himself either by giving a notice to the parties or by any other method if the contents of the notice sent to him are correct or not. He has only to perform the job almost mechanically and that is, to make the entries as required by the Section. I would, therefore, agree with Mr. Mishra that the Registrar could not omit to make the entries in the register of firms even if he had known that the information or any part of it given through the notice was false. Obviously therefore, the case does not come under Clause (a) of Section 182 Indian Penal Code.

16. Mr. Mishra in order to show that an offence under Section 182 Indian Penal Code is not made out has also argued that the offence under Section 471 Indian Penal Code is not at all dependent upon the Registrar making any entry: rather the moment the document it filed the offence under Section 471 Indian Penal Code is complete, whereas for bringing it within the ambit of Section 182 Indian Penal Code one has to go a step forward and to show that the public servant has acted upon that document. The ingredients of both sections are, therefore, different. In other words it means that the offence under Section 471 Indian Penal Code is distinct from the offence under Section 182 Indian Penal Code, and as such the bar of filing complaint by the public servant in accordance with Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code can have no application. Reference has been made to the case of Basir-ul-Haq and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal , for the proposition that Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused for a distinct offence disclosed by the same fact and which is not included within the ambit of section. A caution has however been sounded that the provision of Section 195 cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflages, in the instant case, there is no question of any device or camouflage, since the offence under Section 182 has not been shown to have been made out. Thus there is nothing to reject the contention of Mr. Mishra.

17. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the case of K.P. Singh v. Aftabuddin A.I.R. 1955 Pat. 453., but it has no application as the case under Section 182 Indian Penal Code had not been made out. The other case relied upon by him is the case of Chandra Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 1975 B.B.C.J. 656. That was the case in which the application of Section 195(1)(b) (ii) Criminal Procedure Code was involved which relates to a proceeding in a Court. There is no dispute on the point that the Registrar of Firms is not a Court and hence this authority has also no application here.