Karnataka High Court
M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Limited vs M/S India Sugars And Refineries Limited on 18 July, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRL.R.P.No.2069/2013 C/W CRL.R.P.Nos.2091 TO
2094/2013
Crl.R.P.No.2069/2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/s.Shree Renuka Sugars Limited
(A company incorporated under
the provisions of Companies Act, 1956)
Having its registered (Head) Office at:
# NBC 105, Povlock Road
Off: Havelock Road, Cantonment
Belgaum-590 001, Rep. by its whole time Director
Smt.Vidya Mukumbi
2. Smt.Vidya Murkumbi
Aged about 64 years, Whole Time Director
M/s.Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd.
# NBC 105, Povlock Road
Off: Havelock Road, Cantonment
Belgaum-590 001.
3. Mr.Narendra Murkumbi
Aged about 41 years
The Managing Director
M/s.Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd.
# NBC 105, Povlock Road
Off: Havelock Road, Cantonment
Belgaum-590 001. ...Petitioners
(By Sri S.S.Naganand, Sr.Advocate for Sri
Prashant.F.Goudar & Associates, Advocates)
2
AND:
M/s. India Sugars and Refineries Limited
A Company incorporated under the provisions of
The Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered office at:
Chittawadigi, Hospet-583 211
Bellary District,
Rep. by its Managing Director ...Respondent
(By Sri Ravi B.Naik, Sr.Advocate for Sri V.M.Sheelvant,
Advocate )
This revision petition is filed under section 397 r/w
401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 08.01.2013,
passed in Crl.R.P.No.68/2012, on the file of Addl. Sessions
Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III at Hospet
and confirm the order dated 17.03.2012 passed in
C.C.No.309/2009, on the file of Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC at
Hospet & etc.
Crl.R.P.No.2091/2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/s.Siruguppa Sugars & Chemicals Limited
(Presently called as M/s.NSL Sugars
(Tungabhadra) Limited
A company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956
Desanur Village, Taluk: Siruguppa
District: Bellary
(rep. by its General Manager & Director
Venkatakrishna Rao Yandapallisreehari)
2. Venkatakrishna Rao Yandapallishreehari
Aged about 55 years
The General Manager & Director
M/s.Siruguppa Sugars & Chemicals Limited
(Presently called as M/s.NSL Sugars
3
(Tungabhadra) Limited
A company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956
Desanur Village, Taluk: Siruguppa
District: Bellary. ... Petitioners
(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Sr.Advocate for Sri Veeresh R.Budihal,
Advocate)
AND:
M/s. India Sugars and Refineries Limited
A company registered under the provisions of
The Companies Act, 1956
Having its registered office at:
Chittawadigi, Hospet-583 211
Bellary District, (Rep. by its Manager (PETITIONER & D)
Sri S.Shivakumar) ...Respondent
(By Sri Ravi B.Naik, Sr.Advocate for Sri V.M.Sheelvant,
Advocate)
This revision petition is filed under section 397 r/w
401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 08.01.2013,
passed in Crl.R.P.No.135/2011, on the file of Addl. Sessions
Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III at Hospet
and confirm the order dated 20.10.2011 passed in PCR
No.3/2010, on the file of Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC at Hospet &
etc.
Crl.R.P.No.2092/2013
Between:
1. M/s.Vijayanagar Sugar Private Limited
A company registered under the provisions
Of the Companies Act, 1956
Having its registered office at:
Plot No.90, Street No.7
Sagar Co-op.Housing Society
Road No.2, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad-500 034, Rep. by its Managing Director
4
Sri Anand Reddy Sudini
2. Anand Reddy Sudini
S/o. S.Jaipal Reddy, Aged about 45 years
The Managing Director
M/s.Vijayanagar Sugar Private Limited
R/o. House No.265, Road No.10
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033. ...Petitioners
(Sri Veeresh R.Budihal, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. India Sugars and Refineries Limited
A company registered under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956
Having its registered Office at Chittawadigi
Hospet-583 211, Bellary District
(rep. by its Manager (PETITIONER & D)
Sri S.Shivakumar). ...Respondent
(By Sri Ravi B.Naik, Sr.Advocate for Sri V.M.Sheelvant,
Advocate)
This revision petition is filed under section 397 r/w
401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 08.01.2013,
passed in Crl.R.P.No.69/2012, on the file of Addl. Sessions
Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III at Hospet
and confirm the order dated 17.03.2012 passed in
P.C.No.4/2011, on the file of Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC at
Hospet & etc.
Crl.R.P.No.2093/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Mr.Ramachandra Rao Katneni,
Aged about 55 years.
Director, M/s Siruguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
(Presently called as M/s. NSL Sugars (Tungabhadra)
Ltd., a company incorporated under
5
Companies Act, 1956.
Desanur village, Tq: Siruguppa, Dist: Bellary.
2. Mr. Murari Lal Gupta
Aged about 57 years
The Director, M/s. Siruguppa Sugars & Chemicals
Ltd. (Presently called as
M/s NSL Sugars (Tungabhadra) Ltd.
A company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956
Desanur Village, Tq: Siruguppa
District: Bellary. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, Advocate)
AND:
M/s India Sugars and Refineries Ltd.
A Company registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office at:
Chittawadigi, Hospet-583 211
Bellary District, rep. by its Manager (PR & D)
Sri S.Shivakumar) ... Respondent
(By Sri Ravi B.Naik, Sr. Advocate for Sri V.M.Sheelvant,
Advocate)
This criminal revision petition is filed under section
397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the
order dated 08.01.2013 passed in Crl.R.P.No.135/2011, on
the file of Addl.Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court-III at Hospet and confirm the order dated
20.10.2011 passed in P.C.No.3/2010, on the file of Principal
Civil Judge & JMFC at Hospet & etc.
6
Crl.R.P.No.2094/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Sreekant Sammidi Reddy
Aged about 47 years
The Director, M/s Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt. Ltd.
R/o House No.265, Road No.10,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033.
2. Anantapurgugila Ravindranath Reddy
Aged about 50 years
The Director, M/s Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt. Ltd.
R/o. House No.265, Road No.10,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033. .... Petitioners
(By Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. India Sugars and Refineries Ltd.
A Company registered under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
Having its Registered Office at:
Chittawadigi, Hospet-583 211.
Bellary District, (Rep. by its Manager (PR & D)
Sri.S.Shivakumar). ... Respondent
(By Sri Ravi B.Naik, Sr.Advocate for Sri V.M.Sheelvant,
Advocate)
This criminal revision petition is filed under section 397 r/w
Section 401 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 08.01.2013 passed
in Crl.R.P.No.69/2012, on the file of Addl.Sessions Judge & Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Hospet and confirm the order dated
17.03.2012 passed in PC No.4/2011, on the file of learned Principal Civil
Judge & JMFC at Hospet, as far as it concerns the petitioners and etc.
***
These revision petitions coming on for admission this day, the
court made the following:
7
ORDER
Crl.R.P.No.2069/2013 is filed against the order made in Crl.R.P.No.68/2012 dated 08.01.2013, wherein learned Judge of revisional court finding fault with dismissal of complaint by learned Magistrate has passed the following order:-
"The Revision petition is allowed. The order dated 17.03.2012 passed in C.C.No.309/2009 by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospet is set aside, thereby the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Return L.C.R., along with copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith."
Crl.R.P.No.2091/2013 is filed against the order made in Crl.R.P.No.135/2011 dated 08.01.2013, wherein learned Judge of revisional court finding fault with dismissal of complaint by learned Magistrate has passed the following order:-
"The Revision Petition is allowed.8
The Order dated 20.10.2011 passed in P.C.R.No.3/2010 by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospet is set aside, thereby the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law."
Crl.R.P.No.2092/2013 is filed against the order made in Crl.R.P.No.69/2012 dated 08.01.2013, wherein learned Judge of revisional court finding fault with dismissal of complaint by learned Magistrate has passed the following order:-
"The Revision petition is allowed.
The order dated 17.03.2012 passed in P.C.R.No.4/2011 by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospet is set aside, thereby the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Return L.C.R., along with copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith."
Crl.R.P.No.2093/2013 is filed against the order made in Crl.R.P.No.135/2011 dated 08.01.2013, wherein learned Judge of revisional court finding fault with dismissal of 9 complaint by learned Magistrate has passed the following order:-
"The Revision petition is allowed.
The order dated 20.10.2011 passed in P.C.R.No.3/2010 by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospet is set aside, thereby the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Send copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith."
Crl.R.P.No.2094/2013 is filed against the order made in Crl.R.P.No.69/2012 dated 08.01.2013, wherein learned Judge of revisional court finding fault with dismissal of complaint by learned Magistrate has passed the following order:-
"The Revision petition is allowed.
The order dated 17.03.2012 passed in P.C.R.No.4/2011 by the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospet is set aside, thereby the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.10
Return L.C.R., along with copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith."
2. I have heard Sri S.S.Naganand and Sri K.M.Nataraj, learned senior counsel and Sri Veeresh R.Budihal, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel and Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The genesis of these revision petitions is the complaints filed by M/s.India Sugars & Refineries Ltd. The common complaints were filed against instant petitioners alleging contravention of clause (6) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966.
4. It is contended in complaints, certain sugarcane growing areas have been reserved in favour of complainant sugar company, under clause (6) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The II-petitioner-Sugar Companies and their Directors have purchased sugarcane grown in reserved area from sugarcane growers and abetted the sugarcane grown 11 growers of reserved area to contravene clause (6) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, thereby committed offences punishable under sections 7 & 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act').
5. It is the contention of petitioners that Directors of M/s.Siruguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., presently called as M/s.NSL Sugars (Tungabhadra) Limited were arrayed as accused. In Criminal Petition No.7563/2009 dated 04.11.2009, proceedings against the Directors of company arrayed as accused 3 to 11 are quashed. Therefore, in view of order passed in Criminal Petition No.7563/2009 and also taking into consideration the provisions of section 10 of the Act, learned Magistrate as also learned Judge of revisional court should have considered validity of continuation of impugned proceedings against non-participant Directors. This aspect has been ignored by learned Magistrate and also by learned Judge of revisional court.
12
6. The learned Magistrate without considering the sworn statement and documents filed along with complaints has dismissed complaints by holding that complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case for issuance of process to accused. The learned Judge of revisional court, without considering the averments of complaint, the contents of sworn statement and documents filed along with complaints has recorded an omnibus finding that complainant has made out a prima facie case for issuance of process and learned Magistrate should have issued process. In my considered opinion, the approach of learned Magistrate as also learned Judge of revisional court is erroneous. The learned Magistrate without considering the provisions of section 202 r/w section 203 Cr.P.C., has dismissed the complaints. The learned Magistrate has not referred to the contents of sworn statements and documents filed along with complaints in all cases. The learned Judge of revisional court without referring to these documents has recorded an omnibus finding that documents relied upon by complainant in all the 13 cases would establish prima facie case against Directors of the company (accused).
7. As already stated, the learned Judge of revisional court has not considered the provisions of section 10 of the Act, on the other hand, learned Judge of revisional court has held that if non-participant Directors have any grievance against issuance of process, they can seek discharge by invoking the provisions of section 239 Cr.P.C.
8. The learned senior counsel for petitioners taking me through averments of complaints would submit that averments of complaints accepted on their face value do not constitute offences alleged against petitioners, who are alleged to have abetted contravention of clause (6) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 by sugarcane growers. In the complaints, there is no reference to specific instance much less instance of violation/contravention of clause (6) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 by sugarcane growers, equally so, there is no reference to specific instance much 14 less instance indicating that Directors of aforestated Companies had abetted sugarcane growers of reserved area of the complainant to sell sugarcane grown on reserved area to companies arrayed as I-accused in the aforestated complaints to invoke section 8 of the Act.
9. The learned senior counsel for petitioners would submit that learned Judge of revisional court in some of the petitions, without referring to provisions of section 10 of the Act has directed learned Magistrate to take cognizance of offences and issue process to all the Directors.
10. The learned senior counsel for petitioners would submit that allegations of complaints are vague and bald. Therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaints. The learned Judge of revisional court, without proper examination of averments of complaint has reversed the order of learned Magistrate.
11. Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel and Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for respondent would submit 15 that petitioners have no locus standi to maintain revision petitions. The petitioners so far, have not been summoned to appear before the trial court.
12. The learned senior counsel for respondent would submit that averments of complaints, sworn statements and documents tendered in sworn statements accepted at their face value would constitute offences alleged against petitioners.
13. The learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaints has ignored the documents relied upon by complainant. The learned Magistrate has not referred to the contents of sworn statements. The learned Judge of revisional court while reversing the order of learned Magistrate has recorded an omnibus finding that complainant has made out a prima facie case without proper examination of averments of complaint, sworn statements and documents filed along with complaints. 16
14. It is unfortunate that these cases are pending at the stage of issuance of process from the year 2009. In the first instance, the learned Magistrate had not assigned reasons for issuance of process. Therefore, order of issuance of process was set aside and the matters were remanded to learned Magistrate. Thereafter, learned Magistrate without considering the averments of complaints, sworn statements and documents relied upon by complainant has dismissed complaints. The learned Judge of revisional court, without assigning proper reasons has concluded that there is prima facie case against petitioners and set aside the orders passed by learned Magistrate. Therefore, orders of courts below cannot be sustained.
15. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The revision petitions are accepted in part. The orders of remand by learned Judge of revisional court in these revision petitions are modified. The matters are remanded to learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall reconsider 17 the matters from the stage of recording sworn statements of complainant, in the light of observations made herein and in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate shall not be influenced by orders passed by learned Judge of revisional court in aforestated revision petitions. Office is directed to send back records along with a copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE SNN