Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this application filed under Sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance dated October 6, 1997, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No.437 of 1997, under Sec.113 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 , now pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi. 2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell as per the complaint petition, is that the complainant-opposite party No.2 had purchased 100 shares of the petitioner-Bank of Rajasthan by investing Rs.25,000 at the price prevalent at that time. The details of the shares have been given in the plaint. It is alleged that on May 22, 1996, the complainant sent the aforesaid 100 shares along with transfer deed duly filled up, stamped and signed as required under law for transfer of his name on those shares to accused No.4, namely, the secretary of the bank which was duly received by him on May 27, 1996. It is alleged that the limitation of time for issuing such certificate as has been prescribed under Sec.113 of the Companies Act, is two months after the date of application for registration of the transfer of shares. The allegation is that till date neither have the share certificates been sent by the accused persons evidencing transfer of the shares in the name of the complainant nor has he received any reply in spite of reminders and, thereby the accused persons have committed an offence as prescribed under Sec.113 (2) of the Companies Act. 3. The complaint was filed on September 24, 1997. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case for inquiry under Sec.192 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter the complainant was examined and then summons was issued to the accused persons for answering the charge punishable under Sec.113 (2) of the Companies Act. 4. Mr. B. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the entire criminal prosecution as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the offence under Sec.113 (2) of the Companies Act. In this connection learned counsel referred to Sections 10e and 10f of the Companies Act. Mr. B. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the entire criminal prosecution as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the offence under Sec.113 (2) of the Companies Act. In this connection learned counsel referred to Sections 10e and 10f of the Companies Act. Learned counsel then submitted that the power of prosecution has been given to the Secretary, Enforcement Board of India under the Companies Act. 5. Mr. Biren Poddar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No.2 submitted that the question of jurisdiction cannot be challenged at the initial stage of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that the offence committed by the accused persons is the offence against the Companies Act, and, therefore, the magistrate has jurisdiction to try such offence. 6. The term "court" has been defined under Sec.2 (11) of the Companies Act. It reads as under : "2 (11) the court means, - (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 Sec.10. (b) with respect to any offence against this Act, the court of a Magistrate of the First Class or, as the case may be, a Presidency Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try such offence. " Sec.10e provides that the Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Board to be called the Board of Company Law Administration. Sub-section (1a) provides that the Board shall exercise and discharge such powers and function as may be conferred on it by or under this Act or any other law and shall also exercise and discharge such other powers and functions of the Central Government under this Act or any other law, as may be conferred on it. The appointment of the Chairman and the Member Board is vested in the Central Government who, by notification may constitute such Board. The Board shall then constitute one or more Benches from amongst its members and authorities and each such Bench shall exercise and discharge such functions and powers of the Board, as may be specified in the notification. 7. The appointment of the Chairman and the Member Board is vested in the Central Government who, by notification may constitute such Board. The Board shall then constitute one or more Benches from amongst its members and authorities and each such Bench shall exercise and discharge such functions and powers of the Board, as may be specified in the notification. 7. Sub-sections (4c) and (4d) are relevant provisions which read as under : " (4c) Every Bench referred to in Sub-section (4b) shall have powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely : -- (a) discovery and inspection of documents, or other material objects producible as evidence ; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring, deposit of their expenses ; (c) compelling the production of documents or other material objects producible as evidence and impounding the same ; (d) examining witnesses on oath ; (e) granting adjournments ; (f) reception of evidence on affidavits. (4d) Every Bench shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of Sec.195 and (Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)), and every proceeding before the Bench shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), and for the purpose of Sec.196 of that Code. " 8. From a perusal of the definition of court as defined under Sec.2 (11) of the Act read with Sec.10e of the Companies Act, it is manifest that irrespective of any matter relating to company other than any offence against this Act, the court constituted and vested with the power under Sec.10e shall have the jurisdiction to decide and adjudicate the matter relating to company. However, with respect to any offence against the Act, the court of a Magistrate of the First Class or, as the case may be, a Presidency Magistrate having jurisdiction shall decide the cases. The submission of Mr. B. V. Kumar that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint for the offence committed against the Act, cannot be accepted. 9. As noticed above, Sec.10e refers to matters relating to company other than any offence against the Act. The submission of Mr. B. V. Kumar that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint for the offence committed against the Act, cannot be accepted. 9. As noticed above, Sec.10e refers to matters relating to company other than any offence against the Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the criminal courts have jurisdiction to entertain complaint for the offence against the Companies Act. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order needs no interference by this court. This application is, therefore, dismissed.