TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zens of India at the time of commission of the offences alleged and whether the offences alleged were or were not committed in this country, are questions to be considered on the basis of the evidence to be placed before the Court at the trial of the case. The questions raised are of involved nature, determination of which requires enquiry into facts. Such questions cannot be considered at the preliminary stage for the purpose of quashing the complaint and the proceeding initiated on its basis. - CRL. APPEAL NO. 688 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2002 - D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. Dushyant A. Dave, Harris Beedran, Ramesh Singh and Bina Gupta for the Appellant. A.K. Ganguly, M. Mohan Rao, P. Vittal Rao, Ramakrishna Prasad and Mrs. Sudha Gupta for the Respondent. JUDGMENT D.P. Mohapatra, J. - Leave granted. 2. The question that arises for determination in this case is whether on the facts and circumstances emerging from the averments in the complaint petition and the materials filed with it a case for quashing the complaint filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC) is made out or not. 3. This appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the result that all these overseas investors are left high and dry. These acts, it is alleged by the complainant, constitute offences under sections 68 and 68A. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the appellants issued a document in the name of the Spectrum Infrastructures Ltd., Jersey, Channel Islands, styled as Project Overview . The said company issued a letter dated 30-9-1994, by the first accused. The relevant portions of the said Project Overview and the letter are extracted hereunder: "Spectrum Power, 208, Megawatt Power Plant at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India Project Overview" The letter dated 30-9-1994, reads as follows : "Re: Private Sector Power Generation Project in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. I am enclosing a high level overview of the investment opportunity for the above project. Though I am introducing to you to this opportunity now, we have done extensive groundwork for this project for the last two years. Today, we have reached the point where we can now make the foreign currency investment in the project. As you are probably aware, this is clearly the best time for investing in India s economic future. The economic liberalisatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1956, and accordingly this Hon ble Court is requested to proceed according to law." (p. 733) 5. On receipt of the complaint the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, issued summons to the accused persons on 13-4-1999, requiring them to appear in person before the Court on the date fixed therein. On receipt of the same the accused persons filed the petition dated 28-6-1994, under section 482 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh with the prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 24 of 1999 and pending disposal of the petition to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners before the Court. The main ground of challenge against the proceeding was that the complaint does not make out any of the offences alleged by the complainant and as such it is bad in law and not maintainable; that the Act has no application to the transactions alleged in the complaint as the petitioners are the citizens of U.S.A. and they are the directors of the overseas company which has been incorporated and functioning abroad and that the offer for investment was made to NRIs in U.S.A.; that the investing companies headed by the petitioners have taken necessary RBI permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. The High Court noting that the problem of exercise of jurisdiction, either civil or criminal, over persons or entities situate outside the territorial limits of the country is a very complicated area, took note of the observations in the cases of Macleod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales [1891] AC 455 and Huntington v. Attrill [1893] AC 150 that "all crime is local. The jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed". The High Court referring to that section observed that the Parliament asserted jurisdiction over every citizen of India if such a citizen commits an offence, whether on high seas or elsewhere. 8. Regarding the claim of the accused persons that they are citizens of the U.S.A., different stands have been taken by them in the petition; at one place the statement is made that the petitioners are the directors in the company and residents of the U.S.A. while at another place it is stated that the petitioners are citizens of the U.S.A. The High Court took the view that this fact has to be ascertained from the evidence to be led by the parties at the trial of the case. The Court observed : "Apart from that in a transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. 10. Shri A.K. Ganguly, the learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent joined issue on each of the points urged by Shri Dave and urged that a strong prima facie case for criminal action against the appellants has been made out in the case. Shri Ganguly further contended that the questions raised in the proceeding on behalf of the appellants cannot be considered at this stage of the proceeding since they are to be determined during the hearing of the case. In any view of the matter, Shri Ganguly contended, no case for quashing of the complaint and the proceeding initiated on its basis under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or article 226 of the Constitution has been made out and, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellants. 11. The position has to be taken as well-settled that the power of quashing a criminal complaint and the proceeding initiated on its basis under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or article 226 of the Constitution is to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made out. As noted earlier, it is alleged in the complaint that the accused, appellants herein, have committed the offences under sections 60, 63, 68 and 68A read with section 621. 15. Section 60 provides that: "No prospectus shall be issued by or on behalf of a company or in relation to an intended company unless, on or before the date of its publication, there has been delivered to the Registrar for registration a copy thereof signed by every person who is named therein as a director or proposed director of the company or by his agent authorised in writing, and having endorsed thereon" the documents enumerated in the section. 16. The expression prospectus is defined in section 2(36) to mean "any document described or issued as a prospectus and includes any notice, circular, advertisement or other document inviting deposits from the public or inviting offers from the public for the subscription or purchase of any shares in, or debentures of, a body corporate". 17. Section 63 makes provision regarding criminal liability for mis-statements in the prospectus. In sub-section (1) thereof it is laid down that : "Where a prospectus issued after the commencement of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were or were not citizens of India at the time of commission of the offences alleged and whether the offences alleged were or were not committed in this country, are questions to be considered on the basis of the evidence to be placed before the Court at the trial of the case. The questions raised are of involved nature, determination of which requires enquiry into facts. Such questions cannot be considered at the preliminary stage for the purpose of quashing the complaint and the proceeding initiated on its basis. It is relevant to note here that from sections 4 and 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is clear that even if the offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country, the same is subject to the jurisdiction of courts in India ( see Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Ram Narain AIR 1955 SC 36; Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay [1958] SCR 328 and Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India [1993] 3 SCC 609. 21. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was right in declining to quash the complaint petition and the proceedings initiated on its basis. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
