Bangalore District Court
His Evidence In The Present Case Is Very vs Company Is Registered Under The ... on 17 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 17th day of May 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.32704/2009
Date of Offence : 12-3-2004
Name of complainant : State by C.O.D. police,
Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1.Lalith Sharma
S/o Madanlal,
aged 52 years,
2. Jithendrasharma
s/o Madanlal, aged 50 years,
3. Vijaysharma s/o Madanlal,
aged 50 years,
all are r/o No.303,
Palace 'U' Apartment,
Bellary road, Bengaluru.
(accused No.2 split up).
Offences complained off: U/s. 418 and 420 r/w Sec.34
of IPC.
Plea of accused Nos.1 & 3: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
2 C.C.No.32704/2009
Date of Order : 17-5-2018.
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, C.O.D., Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused No.1 being the Managing Director and accused Nos.2 and 3 being the Directors of M/s Winform Agro Industries Limited which was established under the Companies Act dealing with agriculture products, published advertisements through media in between 9-3-1994 to 22-3-1994 inviting the public to invest money. Accordingly the public have invested money to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- by purchasing shares in which C.Ws.5 to 8 have also purchased shares worth Rs.14,000/- and accused company without returning share amount, profit and not maintaining the interest of the share holders, closed the company and absconded and thereby cheated the share holders and also caused loss to them. Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed the 3 C.C.No.32704/2009 complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 before the jurisdictional Police. Accordingly, the Jnanabharathi Police have registered the case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.70/2004. Thereafter, the case has been transferred to COD, Fraud Squad for investigation. During the pendency of the trial, case against the accused No.2 was split up and the present case is continued only against the accused Nos.1 and 3. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the alleged offences.
3. After appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 3 necessary documents as relied by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused Nos.1 and 3 as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 3. The accused Nos.1 and 3 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4 C.C.No.32704/2009
4. C.Ws.1 to 22 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3, during the course of trial, C.Ws.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 1 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 15 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P47. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time and repeated issuance of summons and warrants. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused Nos.1 and 3 was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 3 have not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf. Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 3.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused Nos.1 and 3 have committed the offences 5 C.C.No.32704/2009 punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
2. What order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1 being the Managing Director and accused Nos.2 and 3 being the Directors of M/s Winform Agro Industries Limited which was established under the Companies Act dealing with agriculture products, published advertisements through media in between 9-3-1994 to 22-3-1994 inviting the public to invest money. Accordingly the public have invested money to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- by purchasing shares in which C.Ws.5 to 8 have also purchased shares worth Rs.14,000/- and accused company without returning share amount, profit and not maintaining the interest of the share holders, closed the company and absconded and thereby cheated the share holders and also 6 C.C.No.32704/2009 caused loss to them and thereby the accused Nos.1 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, C.W.3 is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 is a mahazar witness who has deposed that the Jnanabharathi police have conducted the mahazar in his presence as per Ex.P1. The counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.1 in brief, in which P.W.1 has deposed to the following effect:
I do not know the exact locality where the said house is situated. I do not know for what reason the police have conducted the said mahazar. It is true that I have signed on the mahazar only on the say of police without reading the contents.
The evidence of P.W.1 as above is not sufficient to prove the mahazar, because P.W.1 has pleaded ignorance about the mahazar, hence, the prosecution has failed to 7 C.C.No.32704/2009 prove the drawing of mahazar. The other mahazar witnesses are not examined.
10. As per the allegations made against the accused Nos.1 and 3 who are Managing Director and Director of the company by name M/s Winform Agri Industries Private Limited, played a fraud on the share holders and collected Rs.2,25,000/- and closed the company and absconded and thereby cheated the share holders. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that in order to prove the allegations with regard to cheating, the share holders are very important witnesses. In order to prove the same, those share holders have been examined before the court i.e., C.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 8 have been examined as P.Ws.2 to 5. The evidence adduced by P.Ws.2 to 5 is in similar manner to the effect that they have purchased the shares from the said company and the said company has cheated them including other share holders, without paying any dividend, profit and share amount. Accordingly, the share certificates alleged to be issued by the company have been marked before the court as per Exs.P2 to P15.
8 C.C.No.32704/2009
11. To test the veracity of P.Ws.2 to 5 in order to disprove the allegations made against the accused Nos.1 and 3, the counsel appearing for them has cross-examined P.Ws.2 to 5 in detail. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.2 has deposed to the following effect:
Personally I have not given any complaint against the company alleging that they have cheated me.
I have not filed any petition before any forum claiming the share value. It is true to suggest that I have not written any letter to the registrar of companies seeking return of share value.
The evidence of P.W.2 as above clearly shows that he has not filed any separate complaint against the accused persons for the alleged offences. Similarly, he has not made any attempt to file any complaint before the concerned Registrar of Companies for return money or payment of share value. Therefore, the inaction on the part of P.W.2 to lodge the complaint is fatal. 9 C.C.No.32704/2009
12. Similarly, C.W.6 is examined as P.W.3. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.3 has deposed to the following effect:
I paid Rs.4,000/- though a
cheque. The COD officials have not
collected the details of bank account and cheques etc., from me.
It is true that except given my
statement before COD police
independently I have not filed any
complaint against the aforesaid
industry.
The evidence of P.W.3 as above clearly establishes that he has not filed a separate and individual police complaint against the accused persons for the alleged offences. Therefore, his evidence is also not sufficient to prove the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons.
13. Similarly, C.W.7 is examined as P.W.4 and C.W.8 is examined as P.W.5 who have deposed in the course of cross-examination to the following effect: 10 C.C.No.32704/2009
It is true to suggest that personally I have not given any complaint against the company before any Police Station. I have not made any correspondence with the company for return of the share amount. I have not made any complaint to the Registrar of companies to collect the share amount from the accused firm. So far I have not made any application before any forum to claim the share amount.
I am not aware whether the Registrar of companies has filed another case against the accused before the Special Court for Economic offences.
In view of the above discussions, I am of the firm opinion that the complaint filed by the Registrar of the company against the accused persons for the alleged offences is not sustainable, because according to me the share holders i.e., P.Ws.2 to 5 are the aggrieved persons, but they have not taken any action against the accused persons.11 C.C.No.32704/2009
14. C.W.9 is examined as P.W.6 who is a seizure mahazar witness who has deposed with regard to the seizure of share certificates by the Investigating Officer. To test the veracity of P.W.6, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in brief, in which P.W.6 has deposed to the following effect:
¤¦-9£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä PÀZÃÉ jAiÀÄ°è vÀAiÀÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-2jAzÀ 4 EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀÆgÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀĺÀdgï£À°è JµÀÄÖ ¸Ànð¦üPÉÃmïUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¨gÀz É ÀÄPÉÄÁ¼Àî¯ÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À PÀ£ïmÉAmïìUÀ¼À §UÉÎ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The evidence of P.W.6 as above is not sufficient to prove the seizure of the alleged share certificates under mahazar.
15. C.W.11 is examined as P.W.7. P.W.7 is the Assistant Registrar of companies who has deposed that as requested by the Investigating Officer he has produced several documents namely annual reports, share holders list and copy of prospectus. Mere production of documents to the 12 C.C.No.32704/2009 Investigating Officer by P.W.7 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, because what is to be proved in the present case is cheating. Hence, the evidence of P.W.7 is also not sufficient to prove the same.
16. C.W.12 is examined as P.W.8. P.W.8 is a Senior Technical Assistant of Registrar of Company and he has also produced certain documents to the Investigating Officer. Those documents are marked as Exs.P35 to P46. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.8 has deposed to the following effect:
DyðPÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹¹ £ÀAB458 B 2002, 459 B 2002 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 460B2002gÀ°èAiÀÄÆ PÀÆqÀ EzÉà zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. The evidence of P.W.8 as above further establishes that separate criminal case has been initiated against the accused on the basis of documents which have been produced by P.W.8 to the Investigating Officer. So far as initiation of 13 C.C.No.32704/2009 criminal proceedings before the economic Offence Court will be discussed at the later part of the judgment.
17. C.W.10 is examined as P.W.9. P.W.9 is an Officer of the Registrar of Companies who has deposed that the accused company has not produced annual reports and balance sheets for the period 2005 to 2008 and accordingly he has issued show cause notice in the year 2006. The counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.9 in detail. In the course of cross-examination in page No.2, P.W.9 has deposed to the following effect:
¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ °«ÄmÉqï
PÀA¥À¤AiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è JµÀÄÖ d£À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄEzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzjÀ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¥Áæ¸ï¥ÉPÀÖ¸ï §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À£ï 2005jAzÀ ¸À£ï 2009gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ¨Áå¯É£ïì ²Ãmï jl£ïðì£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀPÁÌV ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤UÉ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ £ÀªÀÄä PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤UÉ ¸ÀzÀj £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß eÁj 14 C.C.No.32704/2009 ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¸ÀzjÀ £ÉÆÃn¹£À ¥ÀæwÀ AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ »A§gÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQë CzÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ®Ä vÀªÀÄUÉ FUÀ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
The evidence of P.W.9 as above with regard to issuance of show cause notice to the company for non-submitting annual returns and balance sheet which does not prove the offences of cheating, because there is a separate provision provided under the law to initiate separate proceedings against the accused company.
18. In the further cross-examination, P.W.9 has deposed in page No.12 to the following effect:
¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzjÀ ¨Áå¯É£ïì ²Ãmï jl£ïìð ºÁPÀzÀ PÁgÀt DgïM¹ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå DyðPÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgt À ªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The categorical admission of P.W.9 as above further establishes that a separate case has been imitated before 15 C.C.No.32704/2009 Economic Offence Court for not submitting balance sheet and returns by the alleged company. As discussed above, the said proceedings are totally different from that of offences alleged against the accused company under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.9 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt.
19. C.W.13 is examined as P.W.10. P.W.10 is a Manager of Stock Exchange, Bengaluru who has deposed with regard to the procedure prescribed for registration of the company, which has invested money through shares from the public. Of course purchasing of share of company is not in dispute. To test the veracity of P.W.10, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.10 has pleaded ignorance about the prospectus of the company. As already discussed above, non- submitting of annual returns and balance sheet, a separate case has been initiated against the company, hence I need not discuss much with regard to the said proceedings.
20. C.W.15 is examined as P.W.11. P.W.11 is a Deputy Director of Co-operative Society who has also deposed with 16 C.C.No.32704/2009 regard to registration of company under the provisions of Companies Act. It is also deposed by P.W.11 with regard to investment made by the company through shares by the public. To test the veracity of P.W.11, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in detail. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.11 has deposed in page No.5 to the following effect:
¥Áæ¸ï¥ÉPïÖ¸ï£À°è ºÉýzÀ GzÉÝñÀª£À ÀÄß DgÉÆæ PÀA¥À¤AiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥sÀůï¦ü¯ï ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ µÉÃgï ºÉÆîØgïì PÀA¥ÉèAmï PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÀ JAzÀgÉ £É£À¦®è, CVæPÀ®jÑ ¸ïÖì AiÀiÁgÀÆ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The unequivocal admission of P.W.11 clearly shows either share holders or agriculturists have not taken any action against the accused persons for commission of offence of cheat and fraud. Similarly, in further cross-examination in page No.5, P.W.11 has deposed to the following effect:
£À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉýzÀ " As per the version of the MD Lalith Sharma the whole amount of 2.25 crores has been received from the public except one or 17 C.C.No.32704/2009 two lakh." J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ M£ï Dgï lÆ ¯ÁåPï qɦ¹ü mï §UÉÎ ¨Áå¯É£ïì ¶Ãmï£À°è ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. The evidence of P.W.11 as above clearly shows that P.W.11 is inconsistent in his version.
21. In the further cross-examination, P.W.11 has deposed in page No.6 to the following effect:
DgÉÆæ PÀA¥À¤ ¦üPïÖ¹AiÀÄ¸ï ¦üUgÀ ï
vÉÆÃj¹zÀ §UÉÎ DgÉÆæ PÀA¥À¤UÉ £ÁªÀÅ PÀA¥À¤Ã¸ï
DPïÖ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ±ÉÆÃPÁ¸ï £ÉÆÃnøï C£ÀÄß
PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. D ±ÉÆÃPÁ¸ï £ÉÆÃnøï£À
PÁ¦AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÉù£À°è ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D
±ÉÆÃPÁ¸ï £ÉÆÃnøï£À°è DgÉÆæ PÀA¥À¤
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ£ÀÄß aÃmï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D ±ÉÆÃPÁ¸ï £ÉÆÃnøï DzsÁgÀzÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÉàµÀ¯ï PÉÆÃmï£À°è PÀ®A 63, 68, 628 PÀA¥À¤Ã¸ï DPïÖ 1956 gÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉÃ¸ï ºÁQgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
The evidence of P.W.11 as above further establishes and proves that criminal proceedings initiated by the Registrar of company against the accused persons is not sustainable.
18 C.C.No.32704/2009
22. C.W.17 is examined as P.W.12. P.W.12 is a Police Inspector who has deposed with regard to the official duty discharged by him during investigation. In the absence of any material evidence to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3, the evidence of P.W.12 with regard to investigation is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.
23. C.W.18 is examined as P.W.13. P.W.13 is another Police Inspector who has also deposed with regard to further investigation. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.13 has deposed in page No.4 to the following effect:
¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä vÀ¤SÁ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ gÉÊvÀjUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä gÉÊvÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÁQë E®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. The evidence of P.W.13 as above clearly shows that investigation conducted by Investigating Officer is not proper.
24. C.W.21 is examined as P.W.14. P.W.14 is also the Investigating Officer of CID wing who has also deposed with regard to investigation conducted by him. In the course of 19 C.C.No.32704/2009 cross-examination, P.W.14 has deposed to the following effect:
£Á£ÀÄ ¤¦-2 jAzÀ ¤¦-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¦-
11 jAzÀ ¤¦-15 µÉÀÃgï ¸Ànð¦üPÉÃmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¸Á8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¸Á-9 gÀªjÀ UÉ vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The evidence of P.W.14 as above and other allegations and ignorance pleaded in the cross-examination clearly shows that his evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3.
25. C.W.1 is examined as P.W.15. P.W.15 is the complainant. His evidence in the present case is very important. To prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3, P.W.15 has deposed that he is a Registrar of Company and accused company is registered under the provisions of Companies Act by following the procedure. It is also deposed by P.W.15 with regard to procedure to be followed by the company, which is registered under the Companies Act. Of course, there is no dispute with regard to the same. It is further deposed by P.W.15 that he has registered the 20 C.C.No.32704/2009 complaint against the accused as per Ex.P47 on the basis of direction issued by SEBI. In order to disprove the case of the prosecution and to test the veracity of P.W.15, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.15 in detail. In the course of cross-examination in para No.2, page No.3 P.W.15 has deposed to the following effect:
¸ÀzÀj DUÀð£ÉÃʸÉõÀ£ï EªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°¸è ®
À Ä £ÀªÀÄUÉ MAzÀÄ
¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß
£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß zÀÆj£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ£ÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. The evidence of P.W.15 as above clearly shows that proceedings have been initiated only on the basis of direction issued by SEBI, but not by share holders who are the real victims of cheating. Similarly, in the further cross-examination in page No.4, P.W.15 has deposed to the following effect:
£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀzjÀ zÀÆj£À°è EzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤RgÀªÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ°è «Ä¸ïAiÀÄÆ¸ï ªÀiÁqÀ®ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.21 C.C.No.32704/2009
The evidence of P.W.15 as above is not sufficient to prove the consistent and clarity with regard to the details of cheating and fraud alleged to be played by the accused company. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.15 as above is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the alleged offences.
26. The counsel appearing for the accused has argued vehemently that the accused cannot be tried twice for the same offences. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused in this regard is not sustainable, because a separate case has been registered before Economic Offence Court for not submitting annual reports and balance sheets, but the present case is filed for cheating by the company to the share holders. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that the share holders who are the real victims have not filed any such complaint against the company. Therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against the accused company by Registrar of Company is not sustainable. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that the accused company is not made as accused 22 C.C.No.32704/2009 in this case except its directors, because the alleged transaction entered into by the company through its directors. Therefore, the directors are not responsible for vicarious liability. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 15 and other documentary evidence is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the accused Nos.1 and 3 are entitled for acquittal for the alleged offences. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
27. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused Nos.1 and 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.23 C.C.No.32704/2009
The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 and 3 and their surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of May 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Udaykumar, P.W.2, Ravindra C, P.W.3, B.C.Sridhar, P.W.4, Guruswamy, P.W.5, H.G.Renukaswamy, P.W.6, Rajegowda K.S, P.W.7, A.Sehar Ponraj, P.W.8, N.K.R.Prasad, P.W.9, V.C.Dhave, P.W.10, Smt.Saraswathi P.S, P.W.11, A.M.Shidharan, P.W.12, D.Ranganath, P.W.13, N.Narasimhaiah, P.W.14, T.D.Durgaiah, P.W.15, B.M.Anand;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Mahazar, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, 24 C.C.No.32704/2009 Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, Share certificates of P.W.2, Ex.P5 to Ex.P8, Share certificates of P.W.3, Ex.P9, Seizure mahazar, Ex.P9(a), Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P9(b), Signature of P.W.6, Ex.P10, Mahazar, Ex.P10(a), Signature of P.W.4, Ex.P10(b), Signature of P.W.5, Ex.P10(c), Signature of P.W.14, Ex.P11 to Ex.P15, Share certificates of P.W.4, Ex.P16 to Ex.P20, Share certificates of P.W.5, Ex.P21, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 1993-94, Ex.P22, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 1994-95, Ex.P23, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 1995-96, Ex.P24, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 1996-97, Ex.P25, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 1997-98, Ex.P26, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 1998-99, Ex.P27, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 1999-2000, Ex.P28, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 2000-2001, Ex.P29, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 2001-2002, Ex.P30, Certified copy of annual report for the Year 2003-2004, Ex.P31, List of share holders with name and address, Ex.P32, Copy of the prospectus, EX.P33, Share certificate H.G.Yogendraswamy, 25 C.C.No.32704/2009 Ex.P34, Covering letter, Ex.P34(a), Signature of P.W.8, Ex.P35, Certificate of incorporation, Ex.P36, Certificate of commencement business, Ex.P37, Prospectus, Ex.P38, Balance sheet and annual report, Ex.P39, Annual report for the year 1995, Ex.P40, Annual report for the year 1996, Ex.P41, Annual report for the year 1997, Ex.P42, Annual report for the year 1998, Ex.P43, Annual report for the year 1999, Ex.P44, Annual report for the year 2001, Ex.P45, Annual report for the year 2002, Ex.P46, Annual report for the year 2004, Ex.P47, Complaint, Ex.P47(a), Signature of P.W.15; Material Objects Produced:- NIL
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:- NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:- NIL.
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
26 C.C.No.32704/200917/5/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused Nos.1 & 3 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused Nos.1 and 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 and 3 and their surety stands cancelled.
(V.Jagadeesh) I ACMM, Bengaluru.
27 C.C.No.32704/200928 C.C.No.32704/2009