Delhi District Court
Sh. Vinay Rai vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 18 November, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE2
NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
CR No. : 496/2017
Date of institution: 03.11.2017 Decided on: 18.11.2017
In the matter of:
1. Sh. Vinay Rai,
S/o Late Kulwant Rai,
12, Aurangzeb Lane,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Varun Rai,
S/o Sh. Vinay Rai,
12, Aurangzeb Lane,
New Delhi .....Petitioners
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office,
Through its Assistant Director,
Ministry of Company Affaris,
Govt. of India,
2nd Floor, Parayaran Bhawan,
2
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi110003 .....Respondents
JUDGMENT
The two petitioners and others (nonpetitioners) have been summoned as accused in complaint case no. 293665/16, vide order dated 05.08.2017 for an offence under Section 628 of Companies Act.
2. Herein, undisputedly, criminal complaint came to be filed on 12.05.2007 alleging commission of an offence under Section 628 of Companies Act.
3. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the complaint could be filed within a period of three years for the said offence i.e. under Section 628 of Companies Act and that present complaint having been filed on 12.05.2007 is barred by limitation, the reason being that the case pertains to the entries for the year 19971999 and requisite information could be easily collected by 3 complainant from Registrar of Companies and also because no sanction was required for prosecution. Further it has been submitted that there is no specific allegation or material on record to suggest that the two petitioners indulged in any act of falsification of accounts, particularly when payments were made to the parties by way of cheque. Further it has been submitted that simply because Form no. 5 was not filed or some fees was not paid, it cannot be said that the two petitioners prima facie committed any offence under Section 628 of the Act.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complaint has been filed within the stipulated period of limitation, particularly when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for two years for which Section 468 CrPC provides a period of three years. On merits, it is submitted that in view of the material which came to knowledge of the complainant, on inquiry, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the two petitioners as well.
4. As alleged in the complaint, investigation under Section 237 (b) of the Companies Act was directed by Hon'ble 4 National Company Law Board vide order dated 22.03.2005. Thereupon, vide order dated 18.05.2005, Central Government directed investigation into the affairs of the company. Vide order dated 05.10.2005, Joint Director (Custom) was appointed as the Inspector. Investigation was conducted from 18.05.2005 to 17.03.2006 on the basis of various records of the company including the records filed by the company with the office Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana.
5. As per averments in the complaint, Varun Rai petitioner participated in the investigation on 02.12.2005 but left midway assuring to join investigation on 14.12.2005 but did not turn up thereafter though questionnaire was supplied to the petitioners and another for their answers. Their answers were found to be vague and evasive. IO submitted report to Government of India under Section 241 of Companies Act. On submission of report, Government of India, Ministry of Companies Affairs directed the complainant vide letter dated 17.08.2006 to file complaint, which led to filing of complaint on 12.05.2007.
5On the aforesaid facts, it was specifically alleged in the complaint that the same was being filed well within the period of limitation as contemplated under Section 468 CrPC.
6. Herein, authorities were duty bound to comply with order dated 22.03.2005 passed by Hon'ble National Company Law Board. Therefore, Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Central Government already knew of the alleged commission of offence in the year 199798 or that the complaint is barred by limitation.
7. As regards the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners on merits, at present learned ACMM was to consider only the allegations leveleld in and the material annexed to the complaint and not any defence plea or any objection raised on behalf of the petitioners.
8. In view of the above discussion and the allegations levelled against the two petitioners, the order dated 05.08.2017 6 passed by Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, vide which they have been summoned as accused, does not suffer from any illegally or irregularity. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.
9. Parties to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 22.11.2017.
10. Trial Court record be returned. File of revision petition be consigned to RecordRoom.
Announced in the open Court on this 18th day of November, 2017 (NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS02 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI