Judgment :- The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records in C.C.No.60 of 2000, pending on the file of the learned X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the charge sheet against accused No.5 in C.C.No.60 of 2000 on the file of the X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner would submit that the respondent has filed a final report alleging offences punishable u/s 120B, r/w 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C.No.60 of 2000 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai only against Accused No.1 to 4 ; that he was not initially arrayed as an accused either in the FIR or in the charge sheet and the respondent had not alleged any specific overt or covert act constituting an offence against him; that the respondent CBI after a full fledged and thorough investigation had submitted its final report indicating specifically the role played by each accused but has not whispered even a word about the petitioner in the capacity of a director or otherwise; that subsequently the Trial Court after taking cognizance against all other directors summoned him adding him as 5th accused in the case. 3. 3. The petitioner would further submit that he has filed Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to discharge him from the alleged offence and the same was dismissed on 2.8.2002; that the charge sheet itself admits that Mr.A.R.Rajasekaran is the Managing Director and the Authorised signatory to operate the Current Account and had submitted the Application Form for obtaining the credit facilities from Bank of India, Purasawalkam Branch, Chennai; that the trial Court has mechanically issued summons to the petitioner without satisfying whether there is any iota of evidence either oral or documentary against him but had included him as an Accused since the company was mentioned represented by 3 directors namely accused No.2 and 3 and the petitioner which is highly arbitrary; that he was not responsible for managing the business of the company nor was he in-charge of the affairs of the company; that the respondent had not produced any evidence to show that he was responsible for the affairs of the company, which is the most essential fact so as to hold him liable for the acts of the company; that there is absolutely no evidence to rope him in a case of criminal conspiracy in the absence of any material to show the meeting of the minds to commit an offence and hence the allegation of committing an offence punishable u/s 120B is groundless and unsustainable; that the trial Court has wrongly concluded in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 that the petitioner as a director of the company would also be liable for the acts done by the company which is inconsistent and contrary to the legal provisions. On such averments, petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra. 4. On such averments, petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner besides reiterating the averments of the petition would cite a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 67 (MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v.RAM KISHAN ROHTAGI AND OTHERS) wherein an appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Delhi High Court, quashing the proceedings taken against the respondents Nos.1 to 5 arising out of a complaint which was filed by the Assistant Municipal Prosecutor before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi against the accused therein for the alleged commission of offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act who summoned all the respondents for being tried for violating the provisions of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court following the judgments reported in AIR 1980 SC 258 , AIR 1976 SC 1947 and AIR 1977 SC 1754 has held: “Proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482”. 5. In consideration of the facts pleaded by the petitioner, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be seen that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner squarely applies to the case in hand since the petitioner in this case is only a director of the company and that his name does not find place in the F.I.R and in the charge sheet as well. After a thorough investigation having been held by the respondent the charge sheet has been laid against 4 accused of whom the petitioner Dr.A.R.Pradeep Kumar S/o A.R.Rajasekaran is not one and a careful perusal of the charge sheet in the whole narration of the offences specifically committed by each and every one of the accused named in the lengthy charge sheet ranging to 8 pages, only those accused named in the accused column as accused No. 1 to 4 have been charged for the commission of the offence offering specific reasons to the act of each and every one of the accused named in the charge sheet. But in a peculiar manner while concluding, for no reason assigned, the I.O. has also made a mention of the name of the petitioner Dr.Pradeep Kumar in the following manner:- ” By their above acts, Sh.A.R.Rajasekaran (A2), Sh.Madhusudanan (A3) have committed offences punishable U/s.420, 468, 471 I.P.C. M/s. Vindia Exports (P) Ltd., (A4) represented by its three directors, A2, A3 and Dr.Pradeep Kumar committed an offence punishable U/s 420 I.P.C. and Sh.R.Krishnamoorthy (A1) has committed offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.” 6. It is only the manner in which the name of the petitioner Dr.Pradeep Kumar which has been brought into the charge along with two others as though the three directors committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. without having brought his name in the relevant accused column nor specifying as to what is the specific offences committed on the part of the petitioner without which simply his name cannot be inserted into the concluding paragraph just for the simple reason that he was also a director of the company. 7. Further more, the trial Court taking advantage of this insertion of the name of the petitioner as one of the directors in the concluding paragraph of the charge sheet while framing charges has made the petitioner Dr.Pradeep Kumar as the 5th accused therein and has sent the summons for his appearance before the lower Court and therefore, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge for CBI Cases praying for the discharge of the petitioner. 8. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would wonder as to how and what procedure the trial Court has adopted to implicate the petitioner as the 5th accused consequent to which it has issued summons to the petitioner to appear before him. The learned senior counsel would exhort that the trial Court is not bound by the charge sheet laid by the police and it could frame the charges of its own based on the ingredients and the materials made available in the whole of the case of the prosecution and since there is nothing put-forth to implicate the petitioner from the whole of investigation nor even showing him as an accused in the charge sheet, just for the simple reason that he also acted as the director of the company he has been falsely shown at the last paragraph of the charge sheet filed by the respondent police as though he too committed an offence under section 420 of the I.P.C. absolutely without assigning any reason for having brought his name in the manner that it has been brought-forth in the concluding paragraph of the charge sheet laid by the police which is nothing but erroneous and the trial Court having been misguided by such erroneous inclusion of the name of the petitioner should not have made him as accused No.5 and sent summons to him. 9. The learned senior counsel would further submit that in these circumstances, unless by means of following the procedures established under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act relating to the ‘facts in issue,’ under no other provision of law the trial Court has any option to include any one as the accused and therefore, what the trial Court did to include the name of the accused as the 5th accused is nothing but arbitrary and in violation of the procedures established by law and the same should not only be discredited but set aside as well. 10. 10. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondent, this Court is of the view that neither the name of the petitioner having been mentioned in the accused column by the charge sheet laid by the respondent nor having brought-forth anything as to how the commission of an offence under Section 420 has been done by the petitioner simply mentioning his name as one of the directors of the company and therefore concluding that he too committed an offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C. in the charge sheet laid by the respondent, without any material placed on record to the effect of the role of the petitioner in the whole of the case of the prosecution specifying the criminal act perpetrated on the part of the petitioner so as to attract Section 420 of the I.P.C and without following the procedures established by law under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. since the trial Court has come forward to name the petitioner as the 5th accused for himself being tried for an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. has committed an error apparent on the face of the records connected to the whole of the case and since the same being a legal error the act of the trial Court in the inclusion of the name of the petitioner Dr.A.R.Pradeep Kumar further dismissing the petition filed on the part of the petitioner, are nothing but acts erroneous in law and hence the following order: In result, (i) the above Criminal Original Petition succeeds and the same is allowed; (ii) the order dated 2.8.2002 made in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 by the Court of X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai is set aside; (iii) the inclusion of the petitioner Dr.A.R.Pradeep Kumar as the 5th accused in C.C.No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Court of X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai is quashed. (iv) Consequently, Crl.M.No.10202 of 2003 is closed.