M/S. Syncom Formulationis India vs. State Of Telangana And 2 Others
| Citation | Crl.P.No.7351 of 2018 |
| Date of Judgment | 27 August , 2018 |
| Court | Telangana High Court |
| Case Type | Crl.P.No.7351 of 2018 |
| Appellant | M/S. Syncom Formulationis India |
| Respondent | State Of Telangana |
| Bench | HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY |
| Referred | This petition has been filed under Section 406, 420, 447, 385, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B r/w 34 of IPC. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The defacto complainant is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Liquors India Limited as well as in the form of M/s. Ravi Kumar Distilleries Limited (RKDL). For the purpose of generating necessary funds for expansion of their business, the companies came up with public issue and for the purpose of bringing public issue, M/s.Ravi Kumar Distilleries Limited (RKDL), the defacto compliant contacted one Mr.Anil Agrawal, Director of the Company M/s. Comfort Securities Limited and arrived at an agreement to take out necessary steps for public issue on behalf of M/s.Ravi Kumar Distilleries Limited. For the purpose of bringing public issue, the defacto complaint was made to open an account with the 3rd respondent herein/Central Depository Services (India) Limited and alleged to have made to sign by the 2nd respondent on the blank cheques and blank stamp papers and handed over the same to the Anil Agrawal. It is also alleged that Anil Agrawal has also rendered necessary financial assistance to the defacto complainant by making necessary payments during the relevant period and it was successful public issue and the entire amount in respect of the said public issue was received by the defacto complainant through the respondent/bank. It is alleged that Mr.Anil Agrawal misused the cheques of the defacto complainant which were handed over to him, by transferring the amount into fictitious accounts by transfer in the name of close associates of Mr.Anil Agrawal and in turn he pocketed the said amounts. The accounts of said Anil Agrawal and other accounts maintained by other petitioners are shown in the table. Thus, under the guise of giving necessary financial assistance Anil Agrawal got necessary shares of the said company mortgaged and sold some shares for recovery of amount advanced and said Mr.Anil Agrawal got M/s.Liquors India Limited in his favour and/or in favour of his close associates by taking forcible possession of those documents.
ISSUES
- Whether or not the accused is guilty under section 102 of Crpc.
ARGUMENTS
The 3rd contention of the petitioners is that noncompliance of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C vitiates entire proceedings i.e., freezing of accounts of these petitioners shown at Column No.3 of the table mentioned above, as the Investigating Officer failed to give intimation in writing to the Magistrate concerned soon after the seizure or freezing of the accounts. Therefore, in view of the serious irregularity, the order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and prayed to set aside the order. Whereas, Sri Raghava Charyulu, counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the Investigating Agency in the letters addressed to the 3rd respondent in all the petitions recorded about its satisfaction that the amounts lying to the credit of accounts pertain to transactions between Anil Agrawal and the 2nd respondent and are strictly adhered to the requirements of Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Finally it is contended that the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the orders passed under Section 102 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable. He placed reliance on several judgments which will be dealt with, at appropriate stage of this order. He also requested the Court to dismiss the petitions.
Judgement
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW CID Telangana State recorded his satisfaction as to the suspension of the amounts lying to the credit of various accounts is misappropriated by Mr.Anil Agarwal who is one of the director of these companies and other shell companies and laundered the same into those companies in compliance of Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C. He also complied with the requirements under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C by letter dated 19.07.2017 in Crl.P.No.7351 of 2018. Non compliance of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C does not vitiate the proceedings. No prior notice of intimation is required to be given before passing an order under Section 102 Cr.P.C. When the investigation is not completed, at this stage, the proceedings and the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot be quashed while leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Court under Section 457 Cr.P.C during pendency of the investigation or under Section 451 Cr.P.C after completion of investigation.
Applying the principles laid down in the judgments referred above to the present facts of the case, the alleged non compliance under Section 102 (3) Cr.P.C is not a ground to set aside the order of freezing accounts. Therefore, I find no ground to set aside the orders passed under Section 102 Cr.P.C by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
REFERENCES
written by Khushi Gadia an intern under legal vidhiya.
0 Comments