Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1885 (MAD)

The Reserve Bank of India v. V. Krishnaprasad

2009-06-23

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment : 1 .Challenging and impugning the order dated 211. 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EOW-1, Egmore,Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.3025 of 2005 in E.O.C.C.No.383 of 2003, this revision case is focussed. 2. The long and short of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The petitioner herein filed the complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, which was taken on file as E.O.C.C.No.383 of 2003 for the offences under Section 45 QA read with 58-B and 58-C of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (the Act). The learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused two in number. Whereupon the second accused-the respondent herein filed the Crl.M.P.No.3025 of 2006 before the said Magistrate under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the complaint, on the main ground that he had resigned his post as Chief Executive Officer well before the occurrence of the alleged offences, as per the case of the complainant. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate allowed the said application discharging the respondent/A2 from the criminal case. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, this revision is focussed on the following grounds, the sum and substance of the same would run thus:- The learned Magistrate failed to note that even before the respondent/A2 having allegedly resigned from his post as Chief Executive Officer of the A1 company, there were violations by him and as such, he cannot wriggle out of his liability. 3. Despite printing the name of the respondent and opportunity having been given, no one represented the respondent. The matter is listed under the caption for orders. 4. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has appeared and advanced and developed his argument, inviting the attention of this Court to the relevant facts that out of 29 orders passed by the Company Law Board, the said company did not make any payment whatsoever under 11 orders, namely, 9. 1998, 1. 1999, 38. 2000, 212. 2000, 22. 2001, 22. 2001, 15. 2001, 8. 2001, 29. 2001, 210. 2001 and 19. 2002. Even though A2 claims to have resigned from his post as Chief Executive Officer of A1 company during June 1999, nonetheless, the aforesaid two orders passed by the Company Law Board on 9. 1998 and 1. 1998, 1. 1999, 38. 2000, 212. 2000, 22. 2001, 22. 2001, 15. 2001, 8. 2001, 29. 2001, 210. 2001 and 19. 2002. Even though A2 claims to have resigned from his post as Chief Executive Officer of A1 company during June 1999, nonetheless, the aforesaid two orders passed by the Company Law Board on 9. 1998 and 1. 1999 were not complied with by him and for which he is liable, at least, to that much extent, subject to proving further violation by the prosecution as against A2.his further contention, on his plea. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner read out the order passed by the lower Court and in that there is no whisper about those material facts. .6. A bare poring over and perusal of the order of the lower Court would exemplify and demonstrate that the learned Magistrate took it for granted as though after the alleged resignation by A2 during June 1999 alone, the said orders were issued by Company Law Board for compliance. As such, it is a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of Magistrate, warranting interference by this Court in revision. 7. I would make it clear that it is not a fit case for invoking the power of the Magistrate under Section 256(2) of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint against A2 and A2 should have been made to go the hole hog in contesting the matter and thereafter, the Judge was expected to arrive at a reasoned conclusion. Accordingly, the order dated 211. 2005 in Crl.M.P.No.3025 of 2005 in E.O.C.C.No.383 of 2003 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is set aside. .8. Incidentally, when I posed the question to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as to whether Section 219 of Cr.P.C. has been taken into consideration by the complainant or by the Magistrate while dealing with the matter, the learned counsel, in all fairness, would submit that this Court might give suitable direction to the Magistrate to adhere to Section 219 of Cr.P.C. Over and above that the learned counsel also cited the following decision of this Court reported in 1990 L.W. (Crl.) 404 – Alagasundaram Chettiar And Others V. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Etc., an excerpt from it would run thus: ."18. Such an interpretation is inevitable, when we consider the object behind this special enactment. Such an interpretation is inevitable, when we consider the object behind this special enactment. When an industrial concern runs into financial difficulties and suffers loss, and threat of winding up appears to be imminent, notification is issued under the Act, to provide the undertaking with some breathing time, by keeping pre-existing obligations and liabilities arising out of contracts, assurance of property, agreements etc., to which the relief undertaking is a party, alive and entering moratorium and staying such proceedings against the relief undertaking. The undertaking, tries to restabilise its finance, unhindered by litigants, seeking to enforce liabilities against them. This his the limited object behind the act." 9. A bare poring over and perusal of the complaint itself would exemplify and evidence that as many as 11 violations are referred to. As per law, for each and every violation, there could be separate charge and separate trial also. However, Section 219 contemplates that more than three violations should not be clubbed together for being tried. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate in this case, while framing charges, should frame individual charges and three such charges arising within a period of one year shall be clubbed together and accordingly, various trials conducted and judgements pronounced. The learned Magistrate is expected to dispose of the entire E.O.C.C. within a period six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The criminal revision case is ordered accordingly.