Madras High Court
U.K.Venkat Rao vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 18 August, 2023
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 09.11.2022
Pronounced on : 18.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015
and
CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.4015 and 4016 of 2017
CRL.O.P.Nos.9939 of 2015
1.U.K.Venkat Rao
2.Nitai Panchmatya
3.N.S.Narayanan
4.Ravi Shivanarayan Kapur
5.Vijay Eswaran
6.Jeevan Muktananda
7.Deepak Korla
8.Pushpendrakumar Shukla
9.Joseph Augustine,
10.kamakshi Ranganathan ... Petitioners / A2 to A8, A10
A12 and A13
Vs.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India,
Represened by its Asst.Director,
Shir.S.Krishnakumar,
Corporate Bhavan, Ground Floor,
No.29, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent / Complainant
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in E.O.C.C.No.47 of
2014, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.-I)
Egmore, Chennai and quash all further proceeding against the accused.
CRL.O.P.Nos.5385 of 2017
1.Pushpam Appala Naidu
2.U.K.Venkat Rao
3.Nitai Panchmatya
4.Jeevan Muktananda
5.Deepak Korla
6.Pushpendrakumar Shukla
7.Rajappa Punnavanam
8.Joseph Augustine
9.Kamakshi Ranganathan ... Petitioners / A1 to A3, A7,
A8 and A10 to A13
Vs.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India,
Represened by its Asst.Director,
Shir.S.Krishnakumar,
Corporate Bhavan, Ground Floor,
No.29, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.4345 of 2016,
on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Allikumal Campus,
Chennai and quash all further proceeding against the accused.
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr. P.Ramesh Kumar
in both Crl.O.Ps.
For Respondent : Dr.D.Simon, CGSC
in Both Crl.OPs.
COMMON ORDER
The Petition Crl.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.-1), Egmore, Chennai, against the accused.
2. The Petition in Crl.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 has been filed to call for the entire records in C.C.No.4345 of 2016, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash all further proceeding against the accused.
3. Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Original Petitions are one and the same, both the petitions were taken up together, heard and a common order is being passed.
3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017
4. The gist of the case against the petitioners in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2015 is as follows:-
The Respondent / Serious Fraud Investigation Office, has filed a private complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence punishable under Sections 628 & 629 of the Companies Act, along with Sections 477(a), 409 r/w.
Section 120-A of IPC., alleging that the petitioners/ accused, on 27.12.2010, falsified the accounts of the first accused Company and submitted the same. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Original Petitions filed by the petitioners / accused, for quashing the private complaint, primarily on the ground that persons, who were shown as Directors of the Company, resigned from the Directorship of A1 Company, long before the commission of alleged offence.
5. The case of the respondent in C.C.No.4345 of 2016 is as follows:-
(i) The Director, SFIO ordered for investigation under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1956, (now under Section 210 of Companies Act, 2013) against M/s.Goldquest International Private Ltd (Gold Quest) and M/s.Questnet Enterprises India Private Ltd (Questnet) vide Order dated 4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 28.07.2010. The Investigation reveals that the Gold Quest was registered on 18.01.2001 with ROC, Chennai. The business of the Company was of selling numismatic products in the form of specially crafted gold / silver coins, which claimed to be limited edition, import from Germany. It was a direct sale through personal approach and based on referral system.
Questnet was incorporated on 25.11.2004, in which, Gold Quest had substantial share capital. Further, it had increased the share capital in the year 2002. Initially, the shareholders of Gold Quest were U.K.Venkatrao, Nitai Panchmatya and N.S.Narayanan, thereafter, eight members made as Directors from the year 2002 to 2007 and some of them ceased to be the Directors on various dates.
(ii) Likewise, Questnet at the time of incorporation Pushpam Appalanaidu and Joseph Augustine are Major shareholders. Thereafter, five more persons were appointed as Directors and some of them ceased to be the Directors on various dates. Investigation further reveals that the Managing Director of both the companies was Pushpam Appalanaidu, who was directed to submit complete details about sales made by the Companies both Gold Quest and Questnet and commission paid by them from the date of inception. The data was submitted in a CD along with documents. On examination of the same, it came to light that in unfair manner the transaction had taken place. During investigation, additional 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 data for sales was submitted stating that in the earlier data there was some mistake. There was lot of mismatch with the bank entries, without any Independent Representative (I.R) details, which was questioned, but no proper reply forthcoming. For the period 2001-2002 to 2007 – 2008 the figures shown were in total variation with the balance sheet and other documents submitted. The commissions shown to have been paid through cheques issued from the Company Head Office under the signature and name of A1, which was despatched to various Independent Representatives in their individual names on weekly basis with a particular cut off date. The modes was that these cheques issued to I.R should be encashed by them by depositing in their respective accounts. This has been done deliberately to avoid comparison with the old detailed form of data and thus the unmatched bank entries created to avoid detection of fraud in the payment of commissions. The Company was heavily indulging in siphoning of money in the garb of payment of commissions through manipulation of entries in their database. The Company also failed to provide proper reply on these misleading facts. The accused with malicious intention submitted the manipulated data to derail the investigation.
(iii) The details of the transaction particulars year-wise for both the Companies have been enlisted in the complaint, which proved the accused 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 falsified the accounts of the Company. Further, it is seen that sale to distinct persons numbering 2,39,484 for nearly around 54,000 products have been already bought by the Company and the sale details have been manipulated and it is shown that 2,43,114 products have been sold to a tune of Rs.619.72 Crores. This sales made to 1,99722 distinct persons. The company has also enrolled 3,69,994 I.R. and received around Rs.1112.99 Crores, till May 2008. Kingpin of the whole scheme one Mr.Vijay Eswaran was made as Director of Goldquest on 26.03.2002 and after starting the chain of sales of pyramid and setting up the module of sale and siphoning of amount has left the Company and made his deputies as signatories to the accused Company. From the materials collected, the offence of conspiracy, misappropriate have been unearthed and complaint filed against the accused persons for offence under Sections 120A, 409 IPC and Section 357 of Cr.P.C., seeking compensation r/w Section 626 of the Companies Act, recoverable under Section 431 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court, on the statements and materials produced, finding prima facie case made against the accused, taken the same on file and issued summons, against which the present petition has been filed.
6. Mr. P.Ramesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners, who are the Directors of A1 Company, under Sections 628 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 and 629 of the Companies Act, along with Sections 477A and 409 r/w.120A of Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that the accused on 27.12.2010 falsified the accounts of A1 Company, for the financial years 2001 – 2002 to 2007 – 2008 and submitted the same on 20.05.2011. The falsification is alleged to have been done on 27.12.2010 and submitted on 20.05.2011. The very complaint itself would show that the petitioners resigned from the Directorship of the Company much prior to the above said date and necessary Form-32 filed before the Registrar of Companies to that effect. When the petitioners were not Directors of the company at the relevant period, the prosecution against them would be an abuse of process of law and need not be continued. The offence and the cause of action taken place during 2010 – 2011, but the present complaint filed in the year 2014, is barred by limitation, as found under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the cases in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014 and C.C.No.4345 of 2016 are one and the same. Except for including the Chartered Accountant Mr.G.Narayanasamy, as A15, in C.C.No.4345 of 2016, there is no material or any allegation in this complaint. Hence, C.C.No.4345 of 2016 amounts to second complaint for the same allegation, which is not permissible in law. The Apex Court in the case of T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors reported in 2001 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 (6) SCC 181 has clearly held that for the same offences, there cannot be two FIRs / two cases. He further submitted that the tabulations, the details of Directors, the persons to whom the debates and discounts given are all one and the same. Further, the case of conspiracy would not arise, since the petitioners, who were Directors during various periods and there was no prior meeting of mind between each other, which is a primary requirement.
8. Dr.D.Simon, the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Central Government / Ministry of Corporate Affair (in short, “MCA") vide its Order No: 3/51/2009 - CL II dated 28.07.2010 ordered for an investigation into the affairs of M/s.Gold Quest International Pvt Ltd., under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1956, by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short, “SFIO”) and designated Officers of SFIO, as Inspectors, to carry out the investigation. The Inspectors of SFIO, after conclusion of the investigation, submitted the investigation report under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the Central Government on 05.03.2012. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, after scrutinizing the investigation report, directed the Respondent/Complainant to launch prosecution by its order dated 18.01.2013, and further on 30.05.2013 against the Company, its Directors and Officers, for violation of the provisions under the Companies 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 Act, 1956 & Indian Penal Code, 1860, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 242 of the Companies Act, 1956. In this case, some delay in grant of sanction, which is excluded as per Section 470 Cr.P.C. Further, the petitioners are prosecuted along with offence under IPC of severe punishment, further the offence under the Companies Act are continuing offence under Section 472 Cr.P.C. In view of the same, Section 468 Cr.P.C., is not a bar.
9. On the basis of investigation carried out by the Inspectors of SFIO, it was revealed that the Company misrepresented and falsified the books of accounts through manipulation of sales, commission figures, manipulated statements and usage of data by falsifying balance sheet figures of Gold Quest International Pvt Ltd & Questnet Enterprises India Pvt Ltd., tendering false evidence. The total amount involved which remains unanswered by both entities amounts to Rs 7,60,94,490/- of 6479 entries. Massive data manipulation and falsification of Accounts done by the companies whereas, the Companies balance sheet do not project fair picture of the affairs of the Company. As per the new data, from the year 2001-2002 to 2007-2008 both the companies made sales to customers numbering 2,93,436, amounting to Rs.806.16 crores, as submitted by the company. This involved sales to distinct persons numbering 2,39,484. This number of individuals have actually become 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 members / bought products of the Companies during these years. That means about 54,000 products have been bought by persons, who already brought one product from the Company. As per the old data submitted earlier by the Companies, in the same period, the number of product sold has been 2,43,114 amounting to Rs.619.62 crores. These sales have been made to 1,99,722 distinct persons. As per the charge sheet submitted by the CB-CID before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crime No. 454/2008, the Company enrolled 3,69,994 IRS and received Rs.1112.99 Crores, including registration charges of Rs.460/- as on the date of the raid of the premises of the Companies, in May 2008. The above variations mean that the number of distinct persons, as submitted in the new data, increased by 39.762. This is also falsification of data to suit the balance sheet / requirements of the Company. The proceedings initiated in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014 is under Companies Act and the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.4345 of 2016 is under IPC., certain portion of the complaint identical, which are for the purpose of narrating the facts only. Both cases arise out of different cause of action, offences are distinct, hence, proceedings in both the cases are legally permissible.
10. The present petitions filed by the Petitioners/Accused at the stage of summons under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the accused, is not an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 hence, the Petitioners ought to have challenged the order of summoning before the Court of Session in Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In order to circumvent the provisions contained in subsection (2) of Sec. 397, the Petitioners moved this Court under Sec. 482 of the Criminal procedure code, 1973. The inherent powers under Sec.482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the Statute. Summons should not be interfered lightly in a petition under Sec 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The present petition is filed by the Petitioners is a delaying tactics, to protract the proceedings and delay the trial by knowing fully well about the case that is pending before the trial Court and willfully & wantonly neglected to appear before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore. Chennai.
11. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel, in support of his contentions, relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Ors reported in (JT 2011 (8) SC 646), for the proposition that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. The inherent powers can be exercised 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 to quash the proceedings only in a case when the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Further relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Aravindakshan and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala reported in (1985 Crl.LJ 1389) the learned counsel would submit that the High Court may not be justified in invoking the inherent power in favour of a person who is known to have approached the Court with a mala fide and fraudulent background. Further relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder reported in (2016 (1) SCC 389) wherein it has been held that “ The Court is expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. The High Court, we humbly remind, should have dealt with the matter keeping in mind that in these kind of litigations the accused when perceives a tiny gleam of success, readily invokes the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceeding”. Further relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanjay Kumar and Others reported in (AIR 1998 SC 1919); in the Judgment of the Apex Court in Registrar of Companies Vs. Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd., reported in (2000 SC 1643) and the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (1982 Crl.LJ 2230); Hence, the learned Central Government Standing counsel prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017
12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners / A2 to A8, A10, A12 and A13 in Crl.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 are the 'Directors of Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt.Ltd' and the petitioners / A1 to A3, A7, A8 and A10 to A13 in Crl.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 are the Directors of 'Gold Quest International Private Ltd'. The Companies were registered as Private Ltd., Company on 18.01.2001, with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated on 25.11.2004 at Chennai. The main business of the Company was selling of numismatic products in the form of specially crafted gold / silver coins, imported from Germany. At the time of incorporation of Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt.Ltd., there were two members / shareholders viz., Pushpam Appalanaidu and Joseph Augustine. At the time of incorporation of Gold Quest International Private Ltd., there were three members / shareholders in the company viz., (i). Mr.U.K.Venkatrao, (ii) Mr.Nitin Panchamatia and
(iii) Mr.N.S.Narayanan.
14. The primary contention of the respondent is that the accused falsified the accounts of A1 Company for the financial year 2001 – 2002 to 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 2007 – 2008 and submitted the same on 20.05.2011. The falsification is alleged to have been done on 27.12.2010 and submitted on 20.05.2011. On the other hand, contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners resigned the Directorship of the Companies much prior to the above said date and necessary Form-32 filed before the Registrar of Companies to that effect. When the petitioners were not Directors of the company at the relevant period, the prosecution against them need not be continued. In this case, the question to be decided is whether the Petitioners / Directors of the Companies during the relevant period, false statements made wilfully knowing them to be false.
15. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the falsification is alleged to have been done on 27.12.2010 and the same was submitted on 20.05.2011. In the complaint, date of resignation of the respective petitioners, and cessation of being directors given, which is not disputed by the complainant, which would clearly confirm that they resigned from the Directorship much before the alleged commission of offence and to that effect, the petitioners filed Form 32 with the Registrar of Companies. The petitioners' involvement can only be confined for the financial year 2010-11. I find that there is no specific averment of any irregularity committed by the petitioners during the relevant period. From the above facts, it is clearly seen that, when the petitioners were not Directors of the 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 Companies at the relevant period. Admittedly, the offence and the cause of action taken place during the years 2010 and 2011, but the present complaint is filed in the year 2014.
16. Earlier a case in Crime No.68 of 2022 was registered by CCB, Madurai City Police, against the Questnet, for offence under Section 420 IPC r/w Sections, 3 and 4, of the Price Chits and Money Circulations Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, alleging that the Questnet collected huge sums running to several crores from thousands of people. The Directors of Questnet approached this Court, coming forward to settle all the customers and sought for compounding of the offence and filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.22943 of 2009 and this Court considering the interest of claimants, directed the lower Court to permit compounding of complaints between the Questnet and its claimants. Against this order, the prosecution approached the Apex Court in C.ANos.823 to 825 of 2010. The Apex Court, by order dated 19.04.2010, found that the entire issue could be resolved and to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the claimants, appointed a retired Judge of this Court as Settlement Commissioner and framed certain guidelines for settling the claims. Thereafter, the Settlement Commissioner filed a report, dated 26.06.2012 stating that majority of the claims have been settled. Further, sought for relieving him from the said assignment. Thereafter, a subsequent order 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 has been passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1477 of 2012, dated 15.02.2013, permitting to conduct further investigation in this case and a charge sheet in C.C.No.3876 of 2009 came to be filed. At that time, another Hon'ble retired Judge of this Court was appointed as Settlement Commissioner to continue with the settlement process. Accordingly, some more claims were settled. Finally, 15,486 claims have been settled, 1,470 claims were withdrawn, except for 141 customers / claimants, who intend to proceed along with the criminal complaints. The amount of these 141 claimants were deposited and their interest was safeguarded. Thereafter, considering the entirety of the case, following the guidelines of the Apex Court, this Court in Crl.O.P.No.30144 of 2019 and Crl.O.P.No.24461 of 2016 by order, dated 02.01.2020, quashed the case against the Goldquest in C.C.No.3876 of 2009 in entirety. Thus, the purpose of filing of criminal complaint for offence under Sections 120A and 409, is unwarranted, nothing but a harassment.
17. In the case before the Economic Offence Court, the case primarily proceeds against the petitioners for submission of written certificate, balance sheet, prospectus and other documents of the Goldquest Company with false particulars and thereby, committing offence under Sections 628 and 629 of the Companies Act along with other IPC offences. As far as case in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014, there are 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 totally 14 accused and the complaint has been filed by the respondent for violation of Sections 628 and 629 of the Companies Act along with that complaint also for offence under Sections 477A, 409 and 120A of IPC., for falsification of accounts and submission of false evidence for the financial years 2001-02 to 2007-08. This complaint is a detailed one filed during September, 2014. In the complaint in C.C.No.4345 of 2016 apart from 14 accused already listed in the E.O.C.C. one more persons viz., G.Narayanasamy, Chartered Accountant, who certified the Statement of Accounts to the ROC, arrayed as A15. Thus, one more person has been included in the complaint for offences under Sections 120A and 409 IPC., which offences already included in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014. It is also to be seen that the said Narayanasamy / A15 is no more. On comparison of both the complaints in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014 and C.C.No.4345 of 2016, it is seen that both are almost identical, except for some cosmetic change and inclusion of A15 / Narayanasamy, Chartered Accountant. The Apex Court in T.T.Antony's case (cited supra) clearly held that for the very same cause of action / offence, there cannot be two cases for same cause of action. The respondent initiated proceedings against the Directors of Goldquest in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014, except the Chartered Accountant / A15(who is no more ). The allegations are identical and one and the same. In view of the same, the case in C.C.No.4345 of 2016 is liable to be quashed.
18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017
18. As regards E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014 it is seen that the petitioners were not Directors, when the financial statement filed on 20.05.2011. The admitted case of the respondent is that the offence of submission of falsification of accounts have been taken place during the year 2010-11. The cessation of Directors has been admitted and the same tabulated in the complaint. In view of such admitted position, the case against the petitioners to be considered along with the Balance sheet submitted by them. As regards E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014, the admitted case of the respondent is that massive data manipulation and falsification of accounts done by the Companies, thereby, violation of Section 628 of the Companies Act, was done on 27.12.2010 and submission of false evidence was done on 20.05.2011. In the document submitted it was found that maximum data manipulation and falsification of accounts have been done by the Company and the Company Balance sheet do not project fair picture of the affairs of the Company. The copies of the balance sheet for the financial year 2001-02 to 2007-08 were found with variations. The new data submitted is quite contrary to the documents earlier submitted. From the balance sheet as on 31.03.2002, it is seen that Pushpam Appalanaidu (A1) and Mahendran S Rajadurai(A9) have signed and submitted the documents. From the balance sheet as on 31.03.2004, it is seen that Pushpam Appalanaidu(A1) and Deepak Korla(A8) have signed 19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 and submitted the documents. From the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005, it is seen that Pushpam Appalanaidu (A1) and Joseph Augustine(A12) have signed and submitted the documents; From the balance sheet as on 31.03.2006, it is seen that Pushpam Appalanaidu (A1) and Joseph Augustine(A12) have signed and submitted the documents; From the balance sheet as on 31.03.2007, it is seen that Pushpam Appalanaidu (A1) and Pushpendra Kumar Shukla (A10) have signed and submitted the documents; From the balance sheet as on 31.03.2008, it is seen that Pushpam Appalanaidu (A1) and Mahendran S Rajadurai (A9) have signed and submitted the documents. These documents have been prepared by G.Narayanasamy Chartered Accountants, S.Venkatram & Co., who is no more. The Directors though claimed that they have resigned from the Company, admitted by the respondent, hence, case againt them to be quashed, will not hold good. As regards A1/Pushpam Appalanaidu; A9/Mahendra S. Rajadurai and A11/ Rajappa Punnavanam, who continue as Directors, and they have not approached this Court in the above petitions.
19. As regards the persons, who have signed and submitted return, report, certificate, balance sheet, prospectus, statement or other documents with false material particulars knowing it to be false or omitted any material fact knowing it to be material, they can be 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 prosecuted for offence under Sections 628 and 629 of the Companies Act. Since the Petitioners 7, 8 and 9, who are A8, A10 and A12 have signed the above documents with the other Director, the case against them has to be proved whether they had requisite mens rea or guilty mind only during trial.
20. In view of the forgoing discussions, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.4345 of of 2016, pending on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, is hereby quashed, as regards Crl.O.P.No.9939 of 2015, this petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.-1), Chennai, is quashed, in respect of the petitioners 1 to 6 and 10, who are arrayed as A2 to A7 and A13 alone. The case against the petitioners 7 to 9, who are arrayed as A8, A10 and A12, are concerned, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes / No
mpk/vv2
21/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 To
1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.-I) Egmore, Allikulam Complex, Chennai.
2.The Asst.Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Affairs, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, Corporate Bhavan, Ground Floor, No.29, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 & CRL.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
VV2/MPK Pre-Delivery order made in CRL.O.P.Nos.9939 of 2015 and CRL.O.P.Nos.5385 of 2017 18.08.2023 23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis