TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. The second petitioner was himself the Chairman and Managing Director and in default, the person responsible for the affairs of the 1st petitioner company. The 1st petitioner Company was a non-Banking Financial Company at the time of issuance of impugned advertisement and therefore, it would be liable for punishment under 58A(6)(a)(i) and the other petitioners, who are officers are liable under Section 58A(6)(b) of the Companies Act. The trial Court also after considering the entire materials has framed charges for the offence under Section 58A(6)(a)(i) as against the 1st petitioner Company and under Section 58A(6)(b) for the 2nd petitioner. Now, whether the Registrar of Companies can file the complaint for prosecuting the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve others under Sections 58A(2)(b) and 58A(7)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offence, Egmore, Chennai. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint in E.O.C.C.No.262 of 1997 and issued summons to the respondents/accused therein. The petitioners have been arrayed as A1 and A7 in the complaint. Challenging the summons issued by the learned Magistrate, the 1st petitioner- company has filed a petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.O.P.No.17646 of 1997. This Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition observing that the subject matter to be dealt with by the trial Court. Challenging the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring registration of every company conducting business as a non-Banking Finance Company conveying to compulsorily register with the Reserve Bank of India. As per the said amendment, the 1st petitioner-Company applied to the Reserve Bank of India and the 1st petitioner was granted registration as a Non-Deposit taking Non-Banking Finance Company under Certificate of Registration No.07.00213. Therefore, the advertisement published by the petitioner Company was in fact an advertisement for deposits, which was not even within the provisions of Section 58-A and which would not apply to the petitioner Company being a non-banking financial company as per Section 45-I(c) of the Act. Therefore, the Registrar of Companies has no authority to issue the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Magistrate also considered all the facts and found the prima facie case and therefore framed charges. Now the petitioner is to face the trial and it is for the respondent to prove his contention. Under such circumstances, once this Court already decided very same issues between the parties, a second option is not maintained as res judicata . Therefore, the petitioner is to be dismissed. 4 . Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 5 . It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st petitioner Company is exempted under Section 58A(7) of the Companies Act. The provisions of Section 58A(7) of the Act specifically makes all provisions of Section 58A of the Act except Section 58A(2) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and this Court disposed of the petition with a direction that all the contentions were left open to be raised in the trial Court. Now, again he has approached this Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7 . On a careful perusal of the entire materials, it is noted that the 1st petitioner Company is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act 1956. The Company was initially incorporated as M/s.Viswpriya Financial Services and Securities Pvt Ltd on 13.05.1991 and later converted to Public Limited Company on 03.09.1997. The 1st petitioner company was at that time managed by the second petitioner. The second petitioner was himself the Chairman and Managing Director and in default, the person responsible f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the charge, the petitioner has not challenged that order but once again filed a petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court in Crl.O.P.No.17646 of 1997, on the very same issues had already decided that only the trial Court has to consider all the facts from the materials available and whether the petitioner will come under exemption under Section 58A and 58A(2)b and punishable under Section 58A(6) of the act, has to be decided after recording the evidence. Now, on the very same points, after much longer years has filed this petition invoking the very same provisions before the very same Court. In this regard, it is pertinent to extract the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.17646 of 1997, which reads as follows: 15.As pointed out by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
