'There is a difference in legislative intent for incorporating Section 441 and Section 454 under the Companies Act, 2013' Discuss.

Both these sections are independent of each other. The question of one section overriding the other does not arise. They operate concurrently but not parallel. It means simultaneously. According to section 441 of the Companies Act, 2013, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any offence punishable under Companies Act, 2013 (whether committed by a company or any officer thereof) [not being an offence punishable with imprisonment only, or punishable with imprisonment and also with fine], may, either before or after the institution of any prosecution, be compounded by: (a) the Tribunal; or (b) where the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for such offence does not exceed ₹ 25 Lakh, by the Regional Director or any officer authorised by the Central Government. Further, Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Central Government may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, appoint as many officers of the Central Government, not below the rank of Registrar, as adjudicating officers for adjudging penalty under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013, in the manner as may be prescribed and such adjudicating officer may, by an order: (a) impose the penalty on the company, the officer who is in default, or any other person, as the case may be, stating therein any non-compliance or default under the relevant provisions of Companies Act, 2013; and (b) direct such company, or officer who is in default, or any other person, as the case may be, to rectify the default, wherever he considers fit. It may be noted that, Section 441 which deals with compounding and Section 454 which deals with adjudication are not same. The adjudicating officer has no power to compound. The Regional Director alone can compound. If Central Government has to authorize another officer for compounding it has to be under section 441(1)(b) and not under 454. The adjudicating officer u/s 454 can only adjudicate on the quantum of penalty. He has no right to go into the merits and demerits of the default.