TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code and there was no reason in law to quash a complaint against them on the ground that they were immune from prosecution under Section 628 of the Companies Act by virtue of Section 621 of that Act. At this stage, it may be noted that the Special Court is empowered to try the offences under the Companies Act along with other Acts by virtue of a notification issued by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 13.3.1981 which empowers such special Courts to try offences under specified enactments such as The Companies Act, 1956, The Income-tax Act, 1961, The Wealth-tax Act, 1957 etc.The said notification reproduced in the case of Kannur Abdul Kader Mohammed Habbefa [2015 (1) TMI 978 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. Thus, even if a number of persons are accused of offences under a special enactment such as ‘the Companies Act and as also the IPC’ in respect of the same transaction or facts and even if some could not be tried under the special enactment, it is the special court alone which would have jurisdiction to try all the offences based on the same transaction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. We make this observation because at some st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany. 4. In brief, it was alleged that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and the Company. Further, accused A1 to A3 made false declaration in regard to record maintained under the provisions of the Companies Act, and filed a false declaration purporting to be an extract of Board Resolution of the Company before Andhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai in order to open a bank account. According to the complainant the signatory to the Board Resolution was not even a Director in the Company on the date the bank account was opened. A series of events alleged in the complaint show how the complainant was induced to invest in the Company by acquiring land for the Company at a cost of ₹ 20 lakhs and make payment for the front end fee to IREDA which had in collusion with the other accused sanctioned the financial assistance to the Company to the extent of ₹ 11.50 crores subject to the condition that the promoters should invest ₹ 4.98 crores as their contribution towards the total project cost of ₹ 16.48 crores. 5. According to the complainant, accused A9 - the Manager of IREDA, suggested that the company should appoint A4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cognizance could be taken against the said accused because the complainant did not belong to any of the categories or persons who were entitled to file a complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act [ 621. Offences against Act to be cognizable only on complaint by Registrar, shareholder or Government- (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act which is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the Registrar, or of a shareholder of the company, or of a person authorised by the Central Government in that behalf: Provided that nothing in this sub- section shall apply to a prosecution by a company of any of its officers. [Provided further that the Court may take cognizance of offence relating to issue and transfer of securities and nonpayment of dividend on a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Securities Exchange Board of India]. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 , (5 of 1898) where the complainant under subsection (1) is the Registrar or a person authorised by the Central Government, the personal attendance of the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two years, and shall also be liable to fine.] of the Companies Act is said to have been committed by the accused A1 to A3 by making a false declaration with regard to the record that is maintained in accordance with Section 193 of the Companies Act by filing an extract of the Board resolution of the company before the Andhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai in order to open a bank account the said Board resolution being a false declaration, since a bank account in the said bank was already opened even before A1 had obtained consent of the complainant to open the said account and further since the said Board resolution is signed by Hari Sesha Reddy - A3 who was not even a Director in the company as on the date of the opening of the bank account. The offence alleged against A10 was that she had drawn huge amounts through self cheques in the capacity of the authorized signatory of the company. It is surprising to see that the High Court has quashed the complaint against the accused persons on the ground of legal defects though no allegation containing such defects were made against the said accused persons. 8. As can be seen from the complaint the allegations are that the accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
