TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incipal embodied in section 300 of the Code. The question whether prosecution under section 58A(5)( a ) and ( b ) and 58A(6)( a ) and ( b ) of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ) will be hit by section 300 of the Code for the reason that the same persons had already been tried for the offence punishable under rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 for violation of rule 3A and rule 4A of the said rules arises for consideration in this revision. 2. The first petitioner in this revision is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of plywood and timber products and the other petitioners are the directors of the company. The first respondent gave a complaint in the Trial Court alleging that the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 58A(5)( b ). Similar sentences were imposed on them for the offences under section 58A(6)( b ). 4. The petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993 in the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The petitioners were convicted for the very same offences in relation to different periods in C.C. Nos. 52 of 1985, 53 of 1985 and 54 of 1985 and they had filed appeals challenging the conviction and sentence in those cases. All the four appeals were disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge by a common judgment. The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence in C.C. Nos. 52 of 1985, 53 of 1985 and 54 of 1985 and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he conviction and sentence and remanding the case, it was made clear that the Trial Court could consider the question regarding the bar under section 300 despite the order of this Court in the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed for quashing the complaints. After remand, the Trial Court considered the question whether the prosecution would be barred under section 300 and came to the conclusion that there will not be any bar. The appellate court agreed with the Trial Court in its finding on the above question. 7. The allegation in the present complaint is that the company accepted deposits in excess of the limit prescribed and that they failed to make repayment of the deposits in contravention of the provisions of law within 30 days from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an offence stands, that person cannot again be tried on the same facts for the offence for which he was tried or for any other offence arising therefrom. The above section also bars prosecution on the basis of same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under section 221(1) of the Code or for which he might have been convicted under section 221(2). A reading of sub-section (1) of section 300 would make it clear that subsequent prosecution on the same facts for any other offence can be had only if the offence sought to be tried subsequently is one for which charge would not have been made in the previous prosecution under sub-section (1) of section 221 or for which he might ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consent of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 220. Section 220(1) provides that if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. A person may commit more offences than one in one series of acts which forms the same transaction. Though different offences are committed by a person in the same transaction, section 220(1) allows charging of such person and trying at one trial all the offences committed by him in one series of acts so connected together as to form th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd case. One of the earlier prosecutions was for acceptance of deposits in violation of rule 4A. It was necessary as per rule 4A for every company intending to invite or allowing or causing any other person to invite deposits to issue an advertisement for the purpose in a leading English newspaper and in one vernacular newspaper circulating in the State in which the registered office of the company is situated. The other prosecution was on the allegation that the accused failed to comply with the requirement of rule 3A failing to maintain the liquidity of assets as required in that rule. In the present prosecution, the allegation was that deposits were accepted in excess of the limit and that repayment was not made within 30 days from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
