ORDER These applications filed under Section 538(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, are disposed of by this common order as they involve common questions of law and fact. 2. Applications have been filed averring that the Company has been ordered to be wound up by an order passed by this Court in company petition referred to in the applications and thereafter, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court became the Liquidator of the said Company by virtue of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and thereafter, the Official Liquidator issued notice to the Ex. Directors to hand over the books of account and records of the Company. However, the Ex-Directors and Officers of the Company, who are arrayed as respondents did not produce the account books or the documents as required by the Official Liquidator and wherefore, the applications are filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to hand over all the books and records of the Company (in liquidation) and punish them for default under Section 538 of the Act and to pass such other orders as this Court may deem fit in the instant case. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in Company Application No. 135 of 2000 raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the application contending that this Court has no power to take cognizance of the offence under Section 538(1) of the Act and cognizance of the offence has to be taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate as defined under the Act and wherefore, the application is liable to dismissed and accordingly, these applications have been posted today. 4. i have heard the "learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator, Official Liquidator and the Counsel appearing for the respondents in the above said applications. 5. 4. i have heard the "learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator, Official Liquidator and the Counsel appearing for the respondents in the above said applications. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in Company Application No. 135 of 2000 submitted that Chapter V of the Act deals with offences antecedent to or in the course of winding up and Section 538 deals with offences by officers of companies in liquidation as enumerated under clauses (a) to (p) of Section 538(1) of the Act and in the case of any of the offences mentioned in clauses (m), (n) and (o), the same are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both, and, in the case of any other offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. In view of the definition of the Court under Section 2(11)(b), the Court with respect of any offence against this Act means the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class or, as the case may be, a Presidency Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try such offence. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the provisions of Section 622 of the Act, according to which, no Court inferior to that of Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence against this Act and Section 624 of the Act, which stipulates that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), every offence against this Act shall be deemed to be noncognizable within the meaning of the said Code. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Official Liquidator, M/s. R. C. Abrol and Company Private Limited v R. C. Abrol and Others, wherein, the jurisdiction of the Company Court to try offence punishable under Section 538 of the Act has been gone into and it is held that except in respect of provisions under Section 454(5-A) of the Act, the Company Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 538 of the Act. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ion Exchange Finance Limited v Firth India Steel Company Limited (In Liquidation) and Bombay Leasing Company Private Limited v Gresoil (India) Limited in support of his contention that suit or other legal proceedings in Section 446 of the Act does not include prosecution and Company Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. He has also relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in V. Sugandha Lal v St. Mary's Finance Limited, wherein it is held as follows.- "Under Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the general law is that all offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code, but, in cases in which there are specific provisions in any enactment in respect of investigation, inquiry or trial, those matters will be governed by those provisions under the Act and not by the provisions of the Code. The definition of "offence" in Section 2(n) of the Code takes in any act or omission made punishable by the provisions in the Indian Penal Code as well as by the provisions in any other law for the time being in force.. Special procedure is provided in the Companies Act, 1956, for the trial of offences under Section 454 of the Act. There is no procedure provided in the Act for the trial of other offences. The provisions of Section 622 would indicate that the trial of offences will have to be in the Criminal Court, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the condition that no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or of a Magistrate of first class shall try an offence against the Act. The• term "proceeding" in Section 446(2) can only mean proceeding similar to a suit and in the light of the provisions in the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, the term "proceeding" cannot mean criminal proceedings. The Company Court cannot take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 629 of the Act". The• term "proceeding" in Section 446(2) can only mean proceeding similar to a suit and in the light of the provisions in the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, the term "proceeding" cannot mean criminal proceedings. The Company Court cannot take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 629 of the Act". Learned Counsel further submitted that the only provisions under which Company Court is empowered to take cognizance of the offence is under Section 454(5-A) of the Act, which has been incorporated by Amendment Act (LXV of 1960) and he has relied upon the objects for the said amendment in support of his contention that even in respect of offence under Section 454, complaints were being filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and to avoid the inconvenience caused and for effective supervision of the liquidation, power has been given to the Company Court to deal with offence under Section. 454(5-A) and accordingly, Section 454(5-A) has been inserted. . 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in other applications submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in C.A. No. 135 of2000. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator submitted that there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that an application under Section 538 of the Act is not maintainable before this Court. Learned Counsel submitted that this Court being a Company Court, which has passed the winding up order can effectively supervise the winding up proceedings and issue appropriate directions and in view of the jurisdiction of Court under Section 10 of the Act, this Court being the Company Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Section 538 of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the definition of 'the Court' under Section 2(11)(b) of the Act, this Court is also entitled to take cognizance and punish for the offences enumerated under the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the definition of 'the Court' under Section 2(11)(b) of the Act, this Court is also entitled to take cognizance and punish for the offences enumerated under the Act. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudarsan Chits (India) Limited v G. Sukumaran Pillai and Others\ in support of his contention that this Court has got power of supervise the winding up proceedings and has got power under Section 446 of the Act to transfer the proceedings including criminal proceedings to itself and decide the application under Section 538(1) of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Court as defined under Section 2(11)(b) of the Act has to be liberally interpreted to include Company Court in respect of the offence committed by the Company as the Company Court has got jurisdiction to effectively supervise the winding up proceedings and wherefore, the Court would include the Company Court and there is no prohibition for entertaining the application under Section 538 of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that if this Court can pass order for transferring the criminal proceedings and dispose of the same in accordance with law, the same would imply that this Court has got power to pass order on the application filed under Section 538 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by him. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Act enables this Court to issue appropriate directions for production of the documents in the custody of the Ex-Directors and the Official Liquidator need not necessarily approach the Criminal Court and can make an application to this Court for a direction to produce the documents. 8. The Official Liquidator who is also present in Court, with the permission of the Court, submitted that the effective supervision of the winding up proceedings would not be possible if the documents and books of accounts are not produced by the Ex-Directors of the Company and this Court having passed an order of winding up, has all the powers to effectively supervise the winding up proceedings, which would lead to dissolution and wherefore, this Court can exercise power under Section 538 of the Act. 9. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the Official Liquidator. 9. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the Official Liquidator. Having regard to the contentions urged, the point that arises for determination in these applications is: "Whether this Court has got power to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 538 of the Act and punish for the offence enumerated in Section 538(1) of the Act as sought for in the application?" I answer the point for determination in the negative for the following.- REASONS 10. Section 538 of the Act is in Chapter V pertaining to provisions applicable to every mode of winding up and Sections 538 to 545 of the Act pertain to offences antecedent to or in the course of winding up and Section 538 deals. with offences by officers of companies in liquidation and the same reads as follows.- "538. Section 538 of the Act is in Chapter V pertaining to provisions applicable to every mode of winding up and Sections 538 to 545 of the Act pertain to offences antecedent to or in the course of winding up and Section 538 deals. with offences by officers of companies in liquidation and the same reads as follows.- "538. (1) If any person, being a past or present officer of a company, which, at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, is being wound up, whether by the Tribunal or voluntarily, or which is subsequently ordered to be wound up by the Tribunal or which subsequently passes a resolution for voluntary winding up.- (a) does not, to the best of his knowledge and belief, fully and truly discover to the liquidator all the property, movable and immovable, of the company, and how and to whom and for what consideration and when the company disposed of any part thereof, except such part as has been disposed of in the ordinary course of the business of the company; (b) does not deliver up to the liquidator, or as he directs, all such parts of the movable and immovable property of the company as is in his custody or under his control, and which he is required by law to deliver up; (c) does not deliver up to the liquidator, or as he directs, all such books and papers of the company as are in his custody or under his control and which he is required by law to deliver up; (d) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter, conceals any part of the property of the company to the value of one hundred rupees or upwards, or conceals any debt due to or from the Company; (e) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter, fraudulently removes any part of the property of the company to the value of one hundred rupees or upwards; (f) makes any material omission in any statement relating to the affairs of the company; (g) knowing or believing that a false debt has been proved by any person under the winding up, fails for a period of one month to inform the liquidator thereof; (h) after the commencement of the winding up, prevents the production of any book or paper affecting or relating to the property or affairs of the company; (i) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter, conceals, destroys, mutilates or falsifies, or is privy to the concealment, destruction, mutilation or falsification of, any book or paper affecting or relating to, the property or affairs of the company; (j) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter makes, or is privy to the making of, any false entry in any book or paper affecting or relating to, the property or affairs of the company; (k) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter, fraudulently parts with, alters or makes any omission in, or is privy to the fraudulent parting with, altering or making of any omission in, any book or paper affecting or relating to the property or affairs of the company; (l) after the commencement of the winding up or at any meeting of the creditors of the company within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up attempts to account for any part of the property of the company by fictitious losses or expenses; (m) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter, by any false representation or other fraud, obtains on credit, for or on behalf of the company, any property which the company does not subsequently pay for; (n) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter, under the false pretence that the company is carrying on its business, obtains on credit, for or on behalf of the• company, any property which the company does not subsequently pay for; (o) within the twelve months next before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter, pawns, pledges or disposes of any property of the company which has been obtained on credit and has not been paid for, unless such pawning, pledging or disposing is in the ordinary course of the business of the company; or (p) is guilty of any false representation or other fraud for the purpose of obtaining the consent of the creditors of the company or any of them, to an agreement with reference to the affairs of the company or to the winding up, he shall be punishable, in the case of any of the offences mentioned in clauses (m), (n) and (o), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both, and, in the case of any other offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both: Provided that it shall be a good defence.- (i) to a charge under any of the clauses (b), (c), (d), (f), (n) and (o), if the accused proves that he had no intent to defraud; and ;. - -- (ii) to a charge under any of the clauses (a), (h): (i) and (j), if he proves that he had no intent to conceal the true state of affairs of the company or to defeat the law. (2) Where any person pawns, pledges or disposes of any property in circumstances which amount to an offence under clause (o) of sub-section (1), every person who takes in pawn or pledge or otherwise receives the property, knowing it to be pawned, pledged, or disposed of in such circumstances as aforesaid, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) For the purposes of this section, the expression "officer" shall include any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company have been accustomed to act". 11. It is well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that no Court can take cognizance of an offence unless it is authorised by law and in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable for trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code or other laws. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows.- "4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.-(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences". Section 2(11)(b) of the Act defines “the Court" as follows.- "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 Section 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". 12. 12. Section 10 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of Courts and the same reads as follows.- "10. (1) The Court having jurisdiction under this Act shall be.- (a) the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the Company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court or District Courts subordinate to that High Court in pursuance of sub-section (2); and (b) where jurisdiction has been so conferred, the District Court in regard to matters falling within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred, in respect of companies having their registered offices in the district. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as it thinks fit, empower any District Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act upon the Court, not being the jurisdiction conferred.- (a) in respect of companies generally, by Sections 237, 391, 394, 395 and 397 to 407, both inclusive; (b) in respect of companies with a paid up share capital of not less than one lakh of rupees, by Part VII (Sections 425 to 560) and the other provisions of this Act relating to the winding up of companies. (3) For the purposes of jurisdiction to wind up companies, the expression "registered office" means the place which has longest been the registered office of the company during the six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for winding up". 13. Section 622 of the Act stipulates that no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence against this Act and Section 624 of the Act stipulates that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), every offence against this Act shall be deemed to be noncognizable within the meaning of the said Code. 14. 14. It is clear from the above said provisions of the Act and the Criminal Procedure Code that Section 538 of the Act deals with offences committed antecedent to or in the course of winding up by officers of the Companies in liquidation and in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is well-settled that the provisions of the Code applicable as no specific provision has been made for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 538 of the Act by the Company Court and unless there is a provision empowering this Court to take cognizance of the offence, the question of entertaining the complaint and registering the case for offence committed under the Act, would not arise. In fact, even in respect of the offence under Section 454(5) of the Act, complaint was required to be filed before the jurisdictional Criminal Court. However, on the recommendation of the Committee, on the basis of the representation given by the Official Liquidator, Section 454(5-A) of the Act has been inserted by the Amendment Act, 1960. Recommendation made by the Committee for amendment of Section 454 of the Act reads as follows.- "The recommendation of the Committee was as follows.- "It has been the complaint of Official Liquidators that the statement of affairs is not filed inspite of repeated reminders and warnings, and if filed at all, is filed only after considerable delay. The penal provision is hardly ever enforced apparently because a complaint has to be made by the Official Liquidator to the Criminal Court, and this involves delay. Much of the delay in winding up is caused by the statement of affairs of the company not being filed in time to enable the Official Liquidator to take the necessary action. It would facilitate his work and speed up the winding up of companies, if the power to punish the officers of the company who default in filing the statement of affairs, is vested in the winding up Court instead of in the ordinary Criminal Courts. The winding up Court, which in most cases will be the High Court, will be in a better position to judge the degree and nature of the default of the officers concerned and mete out appropriate punishment where necessary. The winding up Court, which in most cases will be the High Court, will be in a better position to judge the degree and nature of the default of the officers concerned and mete out appropriate punishment where necessary. The fear that the winding up Court would take immediate cognizance of any delay and deal adequately with those in default would by itself do much to ensure prompt filing of the statement of affairs. Section 454 of the Act should, therefore, be amended, vesting the power of punishment under the section in the winding up Court". Section 454(5-A) of the Act reads as follows.- "The Tribunal by which the winding up order is made or the provisional liquidator is appointed, may take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (5) upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such an offence and trying the offence itself in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), for the trial of summons cases by Magistrates". 15. There is no provision made under Section 538 of the Act like Section 454(5-A) of the Act to take cognizance of offence under Section 538(1) of the Act and to proceed with trial in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and in view of the well-settled principle the Company Court unless specifically empowered by law, does not have power to take cognizance of the offence under Section 538 of the Act. Similar question had arisen for consideration before the Delhi High Court in Official Liquidator, R. C. Abrol and Company Private Limited case, wherein after considering the provisions of Sections 538 and 454(5-A) and 446(3) and other provisions of the Act, it is held as follows.- "The effect of these sections can now be considered. A criminal offence can come to the cognizance of a Magistrate either through a complaint filed before him, or it may be on the basis of a police report, and finally, it may be through an information received. Such a cognizance cannot be taken by the High Court. Section 193 provides that cognizance cannot be taken even by a Court of session except on committal by a Magistrate duly empowered in this behalf. Therefore, the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code is perfectly plain as to how criminal proceedings can be instituted. Such a cognizance cannot be taken by the High Court. Section 193 provides that cognizance cannot be taken even by a Court of session except on committal by a Magistrate duly empowered in this behalf. Therefore, the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code is perfectly plain as to how criminal proceedings can be instituted. A person charging another with a criminal offence can lodge a first information report with the police, who may in the usual course make a report to the Magistrate. Alternatively, the person concerned may make a complaint to the Magistrate directly and, finally, information may come to the Magistrate from others or from his own knowledge concerning the commission of a particular offence. In all these cases, the Magistrate can take cognizance and can proceed to deal with the case. The Court of session cannot take cognizance of any offence directly for trial before that Court. Finally, the High Court cannot take cognizance except on an information lodged in the manner prescribed by Section 194 by the Advocate-General of the State. The present case cannot, therefore, be instituted in this Court, because this Court cannot try this case, if it wants to do so, by exercise of other powers. x x x x I must mention that the anomaly created by the fact that Section 26 of the new Code enables the High Court to try offences not only under the Indian Penal Code but any other laws but does not enable the High Court to take the initial steps in those proceedings, is due to the historical background of the English Law. At one time, the Grand Assizer could first consider an indictment and then the actual trial would take place before a little Assizer. The corresponding procedure is reflected in our law in the fact that in serious cases a Magistrate has to commit for trial before the Court of session. This procedure is applied in England only for the trial of felonies. In the case of lesser offences or petty offences the proceedings had to be initiated either before a justice of the peace or before a Magistrate. That is exactly the position is respect of lesser offences under our law also, the only difference is that under the existing Code of 1973, all proceedings have to be initiated before a Magistrate. In the case of lesser offences or petty offences the proceedings had to be initiated either before a justice of the peace or before a Magistrate. That is exactly the position is respect of lesser offences under our law also, the only difference is that under the existing Code of 1973, all proceedings have to be initiated before a Magistrate. The only exception I can think of is the one given by Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956, which enables the High Court to directly take cognizance of an offence without a Magistrate interfering. Thus, the position with respect of complaints before this Court is that it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same, which must be filed before a Magistrate". 16. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator and the Official Liquidator that this Court being the Company Court, which has passed the order of winding up has got power to effectively supervise the winding up and has power to entertain application under Section 538(1) of the Act. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudarsan Chits (India) Limited's case is not helpful to the Official Liquidator in the present case to contend that this Court can take cognizance of the offence under Section 538(1) of the Act as in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the power of this Court to transfer the proceedings under Section 446(2) of the Act while considering the proceedings which can be transferred to this Court under Section 446(2) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 7 as follows.- "Before we advert to the question of construction of Section 446(2)(b), it would be advantageous to notice the historical evolution of the provision as well as its present setting. Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 the predecessor of Section 446(1) did not contain any provision similar or identical to that of Section 446(2). Section 171 only provided for stay of suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of winding up proceeding, and embargo against the commencement of any suit or other legal proceedings against the company except by the leave of the Court. This provision with little modification is re-enacted in Section 446(1). Section 171 only provided for stay of suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of winding up proceeding, and embargo against the commencement of any suit or other legal proceedings against the company except by the leave of the Court. This provision with little modification is re-enacted in Section 446(1). There was no specific provision conferring jurisdiction on the Court winding up the company analogous to the one conferred by Section 446(2). Sub-section (2) was introduced to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Court winding up the company so as to facilitate the disposal of winding up proceedings. The provision so enacted probably did not meet with the requirement with the result that the Committee appointed for examining comprehensive amendment to the Companies Act in its report recommended that 'a suit by or against a company in winding up should notwithstanding any provision in law for the time being be instituted in the Court in which the winding up proceedings are pending (see para 207 of the Company Law Committee Report)'. To give effect to these recommendations, sub-section (2) was suitably amended to bring it to its present form by companies (Amendment) Act, 1960. The Committee noticed that on a winding up order being made and the Official Liquidator being appointed a liquidator of the company, he has to take into his custody company property as required by Section 456. Section 457 confers power on him to institute or defend any suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding, civil or criminal, in the name and on behalf of the company. Power is conferred upon him to sell the properties both movable and immovable of the company and to realise the assets of the company and this was to be done for the purpose of distributing the assets of the company amongst the claimants. Now at a stage when a winding up order is made the company may as well have subsisting claims and to realise these claims the Liquidator will have to file suits. To avoid this eventuality and to keep all incidental proceedings in winding up before the Court which is winding up the Company, its jurisdiction was enlarged to entertain petition amongst others for recovering the claims of the company. To avoid this eventuality and to keep all incidental proceedings in winding up before the Court which is winding up the Company, its jurisdiction was enlarged to entertain petition amongst others for recovering the claims of the company. In the absence of a provision like Section 446(2) under the repealed Indian Companies Act, 1913, the Official Liquidator in order to realise and recover the claims and subsisting debts owed to the company had the unenviable fate of filing suits. These suits as is not unknown, dragged on through the Trial Court and Courts of appeal resulting not only in multiplicity of proceedings but would hold up the progress of the winding up proceedings. To save the company which is ordered to be wound up from this prolix and expensive litigation and to accelerate the disposal of winding up proceedings, the Parliament devised a cheap and summary remedy by conferring jurisdiction on the Court winding up the company to entertain petitions in respect of claims for and against the company. This was the object behind enacting Section 446(2) and therefore, it must receive such construction at the hands of the Court as would advance the object and at any rate not thwart it. xxx Therefore, the Court which is winding up the Company will be the Court to whom the petition for winding up was presented and which passed the order for winding up the company". The above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not helpful to the Official Liquidator to contend that this Court has got power to take cognizance of the offence under Section 538(1) of the Act and the observations would also show that the Official Liquidator has got power to prosecute for the offences punishable under the Act by filing complaint before the appropriate Criminal Court. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudarsan Chits (India) Limited's case is not helpful to contend that the Company Court is entitled to take cognizance of the offence under Section 538(1) of the Act, Section 10 deals with the jurisdictional Court which has to pass order under the Act and does not deal with the Court which can take cognizance of the offence and deal with offences under the Act. Therefore, having regard to the above said reasoning, I hold that in the absence of any specific provision as under Section 454(5-A) of the Act, this Court has no power to take cognizance of the offence under Section 538(1) of the Act and to punish for the offences committed thereunder and the Court which can take cognizance of the said offences is jurisdictional Magistrate Court which shall not be lower than the rank of Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class in view of the provisions of Section 622 of the Act. Accordingly, I answer the point for determination in the negative and pass the following order.- 17. The applications filed under Section 538(1) of the Act to take cognizance of the offences and to punish the respondents are held to be not maintainable before this Court and shall be returned for presentation to jurisdictional Magistrate Court for proceeding in accordance with law. The applications shall be presented before jurisdictional Magistrate within 45 days from the date of return of the application by the office of this Court and jurisdictional Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. It is also open to the Official Liquidator to make application for direction to produce the documents in the custody of the concerned persons or officers of the Company under Section 468 of the Act.