9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding against the accused. 3. Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Original Petitions are one and the same, both the petitions were taken up together, heard and a common order is being passed. 4. The gist of the case against the petitioners in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2015 is as follows:- The Respondent / Serious Fraud Investigation Office, has filed a private complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence punishable under Sections 628 & 629 of the Companies Act, along with Sections 477(a), 409 r/w. Section 120-A of IPC., alleging that the petitioners/ accused, on 27.12.2010, falsified the accounts of the first accused Company and submitted the same. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Original Petitions filed by the petitioners / accused, for quashing the private complaint, primarily on the ground that persons, who were shown as Directors of the Company, resigned from the Directorship of A1 Company, long before the commission of alleged offence. 5. The case of the respondent in C.C.No.4345 of 2016 is as follows:- (i) The Director, SFIO ordered for investigation under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one deliberately to avoid comparison with the old detailed form of data and thus the unmatched bank entries created to avoid detection of fraud in the payment of commissions. The Company was heavily indulging in siphoning of money in the garb of payment of commissions through manipulation of entries in their database. The Company also failed to provide proper reply on these misleading facts. The accused with malicious intention submitted the manipulated data to derail the investigation. (iii) The details of the transaction particulars year-wise for both the Companies have been enlisted in the complaint, which proved the accused falsified the accounts of the Company. Further, it is seen that sale to distinct persons numbering 2,39,484 for nearly around 54,000 products have been already bought by the Company and the sale details have been manipulated and it is shown that 2,43,114 products have been sold to a tune of Rs.619.72 Crores. This sales made to 1,99722 distinct persons. The company has also enrolled 3,69,994 I.R. and received around Rs.1112.99 Crores, till May 2008. Kingpin of the whole scheme one Mr.Vijay Eswaran was made as Director of Goldquest on 26.03.2002 and after st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two FIRs / two cases. He further submitted that the tabulations, the details of Directors, the persons to whom the debates and discounts given are all one and the same. Further, the case of conspiracy would not arise, since the petitioners, who were Directors during various periods and there was no prior meeting of mind between each other, which is a primary requirement. 8. Dr.D.Simon, the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Central Government / Ministry of Corporate Affair (in short, "MCA") vide its Order No: 3/51/2009 - CL II dated 28.07.2010 ordered for an investigation into the affairs of M/s.Gold Quest International Pvt Ltd., under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1956, by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short, "SFIO") and designated Officers of SFIO, as Inspectors, to carry out the investigation. The Inspectors of SFIO, after conclusion of the investigation, submitted the investigation report under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the Central Government on 05.03.2012. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, after scrutinizing the investigation report, directed the Respondent/Complainant to l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is also falsification of data to suit the balance sheet / requirements of the Company. The proceedings initiated in E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014 is under Companies Act and the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.4345 of 2016 is under IPC., certain portion of the complaint identical, which are for the purpose of narrating the facts only. Both cases arise out of different cause of action, offences are distinct, hence, proceedings in both the cases are legally permissible. 10. The present petitions filed by the Petitioners/Accused at the stage of summons under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the accused, is not an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order hence, the Petitioners ought to have challenged the order of summoning before the Court of Session in Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In order to circumvent the provisions contained in subsection (2) of Sec. 397, the Petitioners moved this Court under Sec. 482 of the Criminal procedure code, 1973. The inherent powers under Sec.482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the Statute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d perused the materials available on record. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners / A2 to A8, A10, A12 and A13 in Crl.O.P.No.9939 of 2015 are the 'Directors of Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt.Ltd' and the petitioners / A1 to A3, A7, A8 and A10 to A13 in Crl.O.P.No.5385 of 2017 are the Directors of 'Gold Quest International Private Ltd'. The Companies were registered as Private Ltd., Company on 18.01.2001, with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated on 25.11.2004 at Chennai. The main business of the Company was selling of numismatic products in the form of specially crafted gold / silver coins, imported from Germany. At the time of incorporation of Quest Net Enterprises India Pvt.Ltd., there were two members / shareholders viz., Pushpam Appalanaidu and Joseph Augustine. At the time of incorporation of Gold Quest International Private Ltd., there were three members / shareholders in the company viz., (i). Mr.U.K.Venkatrao, (ii) Mr.Nitin Panchamatia and (iii) Mr.N.S.Narayanan. 14. The primary contention of the respondent is that the accused falsified the accounts of A1 Company for the financial year 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in C.ANos.823 to 825 of 2010. The Apex Court, by order dated 19.04.2010, found that the entire issue could be resolved and to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the claimants, appointed a retired Judge of this Court as Settlement Commissioner and framed certain guidelines for settling the claims. Thereafter, the Settlement Commissioner filed a report, dated 26.06.2012 stating that majority of the claims have been settled. Further, sought for relieving him from the said assignment. Thereafter, a subsequent order has been passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1477 of 2012, dated 15.02.2013, permitting to conduct further investigation in this case and a charge sheet in C.C.No.3876 of 2009 came to be filed. At that time, another Hon'ble retired Judge of this Court was appointed as Settlement Commissioner to continue with the settlement process. Accordingly, some more claims were settled. Finally, 15,486 claims have been settled, 1,470 claims were withdrawn, except for 141 customers / claimants, who intend to proceed along with the criminal complaints. The amount of these 141 claimants were deposited and their interest was safeguarded. Thereafter, considering the entirety of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The admitted case of the respondent is that the offence of submission of falsification of accounts have been taken place during the year 2010-11. The cessation of Directors has been admitted and the same tabulated in the complaint. In view of such admitted position, the case against the petitioners to be considered along with the Balance sheet submitted by them. As regards E.O.C.C.No.47 of 2014, the admitted case of the respondent is that massive data manipulation and falsification of accounts done by the Companies, thereby, violation of Section 628 of the Companies Act, was done on 27.12.2010 and submission of false evidence was done on 20.05.2011. In the document submitted it was found that maximum data manipulation and falsification of accounts have been done by the Company and the Company Balance sheet do not project fair picture of the affairs of the Company. The copies of the balance sheet for the financial year 2001-02 to 2007-08 were found with variations. The new data submitted is quite contrary to the documents earlier submitted. From the balance sheet as on 31.03.2002, it is seen that Pushpam Appalanaidu (A1) and Mahendran S Rajadurai(A9) have signed and submitted the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
