Section 436 of CA 2013 : Section 436: Offences Triable By Special Courts

Explanation using Example

Imagine a scenario where a company's director is accused of fraud related to the company's finances. The registered office of the company is located in Mumbai, which falls under the jurisdiction of a Special Court established to try offences under the Companies Act, 2013.

According to Section 436(1)(a), this financial fraud offence, specified under Section 435(1), must be tried only by the Special Court in Mumbai. If there are multiple Special Courts in Mumbai, the High Court will specify which one will handle the case.

Under Section 436(1)(b), if the director is arrested and brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate can authorize detention for up to fifteen days if he is a Judicial Magistrate, or seven days if an Executive Magistrate. However, if the Magistrate believes further detention isn't necessary, the director will be sent to the Special Court.

As per Section 436(1)(c), the Special Court has the authority to exercise the same powers as a Magistrate over the director during the trial.

Furthermore, Section 436(1)(d) allows the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence without the director being committed for trial if the police report or a complaint provides sufficient facts.

Section 436(2) states that the Special Court, while trying the director for the Companies Act offence, can also try him for other related criminal offences in the same trial, as allowed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Lastly, Section 436(3) permits the Special Court to conduct a summary trial for offences under the Act punishable with imprisonment up to three years, with the caveat that the sentence should not exceed one year. If during the summary trial it seems that a longer sentence might be necessary, or for any other reason a summary trial is not appropriate, the Special Court will switch to a regular trial procedure.