JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. In this case one Karali Charan Banerji, who describes himself as one of the directors of the Allahabad Engineering Company, Limited, presented a petition to the Joint Magistrate of Allahabad, stating that one Sidheshwar Ghose was the Chief Director of the Company, that under the Articles of Association it was the duty of Sidheshwar Ghose to keep certain accounts, that the complainant has discovered that Sidheshwar Ghose, who had been entrusted with keeping accounts, had kept none, and that he had failed to produce any, though called upon for more than once to do so, and at the end of the petition the complainant stated that he believed that Sidheshwar Ghose had misappropriated money belonging to the Company and that he was busy making up false accounts and that no account or balance-sheet had been submitted to the Registrar of the Joint Stock Company as required by section 74 of the Indian Companies Act. The complainant prayed that a search warrant might be issued at once, the books of the Company seized and an enquiry made by the court. I take it that the object of the complainant was two-fold first, to get Sidheshwar Ghose fined under section 74 of the Indian Companies Act for not having filed accounts with the Registrar, and, secondly, to get the Magistrate to examine the Company's books and, if possible, to make out from them a case of misappropriation or falsification of accounts against Sidheshwar Ghose. The Magistrate took the statement of the complainant and then issued a search-warrant. Under the warrant a number of books and accounts were produced and marked. At that stage Sidheshwar Ghose applied to this Court in revision contending that Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or issue a search-warrant. It seems to me quite clear that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint that Sidheshwar Ghose had failed to comply with section 74 of the Indian Companies Act and the Magistrate had certainly jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of misappropriation of money or falsification of accounts against Sidheshwar Ghose. Whether the Magistrate ought in the circumstances to have taken action or not is another matter. Whether the Magistrate ought in the circumstances to have taken action or not is another matter. It goes without saying that a Magistrate will not inflict a fine in every case in which it can be shown that the accounts specified in section 74 have not been filed with the Registrar by the date specified in the Act, and ordinarily I should say a Magistrate would be chary of proceeding on a complaint of this kind except after reference to the Registrar or on the complaint of responsible persons. As for the complaint of misappropriation and falsification of accounts, it was extremely vague, and the Magistrate could not be expected to hunt through the accounts and to see whether a case could be made out against Sidheshwar Ghose. 2. The complaint, however, has yet to be disposed of. The Magistrate has jurisdiction. This application is premature and with these remarks I dismiss it.