Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Complainant has filed complaints U/Sec.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable U/sec.420, 416, 419 & 177 of IPC in C.C. No. 30750/2021 and for the offences punishable U/Sec.266G & 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the Accused.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; The accused No.1 was the Managing Director of accused No.2- M/s. Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers & Builders Ltd., (herein after referred to as 'MDBL'). Which was incorporated as a private limited company on C.C.No. 30750/2021 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 11/08/1994 and converted into a public limited company on 12/08/1998, with the object of carrying on the business to develop, construct, furnish, let-out, sell, deal in and to carry on all or any of the functions of Proprietors of lands, flats, dwelling houses, shops, offices, commercial complexes, factory sheds, buildings and accommodation of all kinds. The accused No.1 was dis- qualified from the Directorship of said company on 30/11/2009 U/sec. 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956. In spite of it, the accused No.1 knowingly & intentionally furnished false information about his name, his father's name & the addresses to the Directors Identification Number (in short 'DIN') Cell of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (in short 'MCA') of the Government of India, in ordered to obtain more than one DIN Numbers in violation of Sec.266C of the Companies Act, 1956. The accused No.1 in order to get Directorship in some other companies obtained more than one DIN Numbers by dishonestly inducing the authorities of DIN Cell of MCA C.C.No. 30750/2021 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 by personating himself with different names & addresses and thereby cheated the said authorities by impersonation. Accordingly, the accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC and Sec.266G & 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.

4. In the connected C.C. No. 30756/2021 the allegations of the complaint are same as that of the allegations in the C.C. No. 30750/2021. However, it is alleged in C.C. No. 30756/2021 that the accused have committed the offences punishable U/sec.266G & 628 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the course of trial it was brought to notice of this court that, the offence punishable U/sec.266G was compounded before the Hon'ble Company Law Board, Chennai in C.A No.287/2014 on 22/05/2015, which was also confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in C.A No.17/2015, on 22/07/2022 and permitted the trial of the offences C.C.No. 30750/2021 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC in C.C. No.30750/2021. Further, it was submitted that the offence punishable U/sec.628 of the Companies Act alleged in C.C. No.30756/2021 was not compounded and as such, said C.C. No.30756/2021 shall be proceeded for the said offence.

5. Thereafter, in the course of the evidence before charge, it was mutually agreed by both the parties that, as the allegations & issues involved in these cases are one & the same, both these cases can be clubbed together for further trial. Accordingly, these two cases were clubbed and the common evidence before charge U/Sec. 244 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. Thereafter, in the course of hearing before charge it was mutually agreed by both the parties that the offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act as alleged in C.C. No. 30756/2021 & the offence punishable U/sec.177 of IPC as alleged in CC No. 30750/2021 are one and the same arising out of C.C.No. 30750/2021 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 a common incident & also having same ingredients and as such either of the said offences have to be charged, but not both. Further, it was also agreed that the offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act being under the Special enactment shall prevail over the offence punishable U/sec.177 of IPC, which is a General enactment and as such charge may be framed for the offence punishable U/sec.628 of the Companies Act only. Further, it is also agreed that the offence punishable U/sec.419 & 420 of IPC cannot co-exist as both are different species of the offence of cheating. As such, the ingredients of the allegations made in this case would attract only the offence punishable U/sec.419 of IPC, but not both 419 & 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the charges were framed for the offences punishable U/sec.419 of IPC & Sec.628 of the Companies Act, read over & explained to the accused in the language known to them, wherein they have not pleaded guilty, but claimed for trial. Hence, the case was taken up for trial.

C.C.No. 30750/2021 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021

20. Apart from all the above Ld. Defence counsel has contended that as the very offence of obtaining more than one DINs, which is P/U/Sec.266G of The Companies Act, 1956 was compounded, the corresponding offence P/U/Sec.628 of the said Act would not survive. He also argued that if at all said offence P/U/Sec.628 would survive, Hon'ble High Court while disposing said C.A No.17/2015 would have permitted the trial of said Offence P/U/Sec.628. But, in the said order Hon'ble High court has specifically & clearly held that the trial of the offence punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC in C.C. No.30750/2021 shall be continued, but not stated that the remaining offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act after compouding the offence punishable U/sec. 266G of the Companies Act in C.C. No. 30756/2021, on which said C.A No. 17/2015 has arisen shall be continued.