TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the same complaint case, I am delivering this separate order as the facts relating to this petitioner, accused No. 36 are slightly different. 3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this present petition and the circumstances under which the petitioner is seeking the relief of quashing of process may be stated briefly as follows : 4. The 1st Respondent, who is the complainant, on information received and on reasonable belief that Accused No.l Company was evading payment of Central Excise duty searched the offices of the Company, its factories and its branch offices as well as the residences of some of the Directors on 9-12-1985. 5. Accused Nos. 2 to 18 are Directors of Accused No.l Company Accused Nos. 19 to 30 are Senior Executive Officers in Accused No. 1 Company, while accused No. 31 is a separate Company and accused Nos. 32 to 36 were the Directors of the said Company, accused No. 37 being was the Secretary of the said Company. According to the allegations in the complaint all these Directors were in charge of and were responsible for conduct of the business of respective Companies, accused No. 1 and 31. According to the prosecution after investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board which passed a resolution on 15-11-1983 approving the agreement which was sought to be entered into between the parties i.e. Accused No.l and Accused No. 31. 7. In para 24 it is alleged by the complainant that Accused Nos. 31 to 37 was an organisation which came in handy which was completely under the control of Accused Nos. 1 to 30 as could be found from the fact that one of the Kirloskars is a member of the Board and Accused No. 23 was a trusted and confidential man of Accused No.l. It is further alleged in the complaint that in fact the amount of warranty collected by Accused No. 31 Company and its Directors was siphoned back to the principal Company Accused No.l. Thus the main gravamen as is shown at the end of para 36 of the complaint on behalf of the prosecution is as follows: "All officers and executives i.e. Accused Nos.19 to 30, both inclusive, were parties to the said continuing criminal conspiracy which was hatched at the registered office of Accused No.l at Pune and Karad to commit the offence of tax evasion and Accused No. 31 and Accused Nos. 32 to 37, both inclusive, all Directors of Accused No. 31 joined the said continuing conspiracy and aided and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spiracy has been stated in the complaint and the prosecution would be able to show during the evidence that Accused No. 31 Company had joined the conspiracy much prior to 29-7-1983 i.e. before the petitioner resigned from the Directorship and that he would be therefore guilty so far as that period is concerned. 10. It is well settled that this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the process issued in the complaint case, if ex-facie reading of the complaint without adding or subtracting any facts from the same can lead to the conclusion that there are no grounds for substantiating that complaint against all or any of them. It is an admitted position that the petitioner Accused No. 36 is ex-director of the Company as the title of the complaint itself shows. The petitioner has also filed the affidavit reiterating the same supported by the certified copies of the records of the Registrar of Companies, which averment has not been refuted by the first respondent. It is therefore clearly established that the petitioner was no longer concerned with the running of the business of the company Accused No. 31 as from 29-7-1983. 11. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Assistant Collector on 17-10-1983 which became effective on 1-11-1983, that is at any rate 14 days before the formal agreement dated 15-11-1983 was executed. 15. Accepting the complainant's version as it is, it cannot be said that Accused Nos. 31 to 37 joined in any conspiracy before 30th September 1983. It is not understood as to what the complainant means by saying that Accused Nos. 31 to 37 formally joined the conspiracy on 15-11-1983. In fact such an averment is totally baseless. Joining of conspiracy which is a criminal act is a question of fact and there cannot be informal joining of conspiracy and formal joining of conspiracy. Thus from the averments made in the complaint this alleged joining of conspiracy by Accused Nos. 31 to 37 cannot be at any rate before 30-9-1983. 16. In view of the undisputed fact that petitioner Accused No. 36 ceased to be a Director of Accused No. 31 company as on 29-7-1983 and further fact that the petitioner Accused No. 36 was described as ex-director of Accused No. 31 Company, which is facie proved, establishes that the petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged joining of conspiracy or participation in such conspiracy fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
