( 1 ) THOUGH Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, took a great deal of our time, he was unable to convince us that the judgment of Rajagopalan J. against which this appeal has been filed is wrong.

( 2 ) THE point which was. strenuously pressed upon us was that the investigation by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C. T. D. , Madras Was barred by the provisions of Section 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, corresponding to section 630 of Act I of 1956. The investigation Is being made in respect of alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. We have no hesitation in holding that offences under these sections are Different from the offence contemplated under Section 282-A of the Indian Companies Act. 1913. There can be no bar therefore to the investigation. Section 282-A, in our opinion^ "relates to an offence much less serious than an offence under Section 406 or 408 or 477a of the Indian Penal Code. This is made evident by the fact that a person found guilty under Section 282-A can be punished only with fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000, whereas a person found guilty under Section 406,

4. P. C. , can be punished with imprisonment of either dee-caption for a term which may extend, to three years, or with fine or with both; and a person found guilty under section 409, I. P. O, can be awarded a more severe punishment. For the offence under Section 477-A the punishment can extend to Imprisonment for seven years. We agree with the learned. Judge, Rajagopalan J. that the scope of Section 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, is quite distinct and different from the scope of Sections 406, 409 ami 477a of the Indian Penal Code.- There is no ground therefore lor preventing the police officer from continuing the investigation with which he had been entrusted.

( 3 ) THE appeal is dismissed.