IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED TI-{IS "rm: 20"' DAY OF 0CTOBER«jZ0®V"'
BEFORE O O ' O " O
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HJULUVAb1}G;R».XMESH._V E '
CRIMINAL PE"I'I'I'1_0N NO.:~:%0O56 OF 2063
BETWEEN:
1 SRINJEHANGIR
MACKAR MANZIL
125, THYNOTHIL~E,A_RC)_A[)';' _
:KERA'LA_..6_$3.4V£0.14f'»._v
2 SRLU M SHAPE
30/1E4«%1_9 A, DREAMS
;?ONNURANNY;
" \f.YTTIL, COSHEN,
I{ERAE...A 570 023.
~.3"E'..__«1S§"{'i"_*}?__TV~E.§J'ARGHESE
29,4 JUSTICE LANE,
O MNATA ROAD,
'xryrH1LA, CHOCHIN,
"*¢_KERALA.
1% SRISARANGICRAMESH
D4202, LANDSDOWN 'APARTMENTS,
7TH CROSS, DOMLUR,
BANGALORE. PETITiONVIfZRI_S»AI..
(By M/S INDUS LAW ADVOCATES, ADVS.) I [j _
AND :
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF
M/S PRECISION PANEL WQR_i(S(P'}LTD., T A
(IN LIQUIDATION), ATTACH__ED_ TO HIGH '"OU.R"'F
OF KARNATAKA, *
4TH FLOOR, 'D' AND 11% WING,
KENDRIYASADAN, ' '
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE ,i_;;_RESPONDENT
(By Sri DEEI>AA§<;O,4:AD\;?_. FOR OFFIIC.IVAI,:fLIQUIDATOR)
THIS C:§}I'I.,AINT IN C.C.NO.664/2007
EII,::;D BY I'I'i~{.E1V'1{1ES§'OI\IDENT AND PENDING ON THE
S, SRL. COURT EOR ECONOMIC OEEENCES,
I CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
I =,_I')A--':I*, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
>9"
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for to quash the.–f”cri’rn.i’naE
complaint in C.C.No.664/07 filed by the
pending on the file of the Speciai coat: for Econoinvici«Qffencens’,
Bangalore.
2. The respondeiit><)ffic:iaii_ ipillduidvator initiated criminal
proceedings against the of Economic
Offences, fortheoffencie"ip'uni'shable under Section
200 o§'fi(3r.ii5'§Cii.i1f/wjp (c) of the Companies Act
of 1956'and' i2u1ev..§'¢%frC§5'nii5an'ies (Court) Rules £959.
'A appears that petitioners were the former Directors of
Works Pvt. Ltd., By order dated 2.5.05 the
said' confipaiiy was ordered to be wound up in the company
ipetiti'oniiiNo.l59/02 before this Court. Thereafter, the official
ilpiiquidator filed company appiication Nos.78{}/05 and 781/05 in
company petition for issuing summons to the Directors of the
company to file the statement of affairs of the companyand to
hand over the books of accounts and records of thej'Cotnpa,ny
respectively.
4. According to the petitiohers__, itthose tiw_-o’app1iicat’ioi’is,
filed by the official liquidator in”‘iajapl.icatiioii._lSlo.l?-8(l’andii’l8l/05 it
were dismissed by this jand:itthe_ roespondenti viias directed
to file the same before theiju.ristjlicitio*ii’aVl ‘Ma–giistrate. i3ursuant
to the comp_la_int::1fi’led.Vheft;zrei j_uii*iiso’ic’tiona1 Magistrate the
summons ‘camel ‘toj’-be against these petitioners alleging
that they :1;-gin pos_sessioiI)i~~ii’of certain books and records of the
” ‘~ and soug1ivt«—-for a direction to hand over the same.
*~6.”:According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
the p;3titi<)ners were not the Directors as on the date of winding
is'
up of the company. They retired early during September
2001 itself; they were only the nominal directors; the company
petition is filed during 2002 and the company
proceedings initiated during 2005; they have
the books of accounts and other~~~cor1'eS;p.olndence9°oftiled
company. As such, the continuation iproceecii-nvgs
them is abuse of process of law. '
7. Per~c.ontra, the learned :Cou’nsel ap’pe.ai’in’ig for the
respondent-complainant ‘due to the default
committed by has seized certain of
the bookslllofiaccou-nts._duri-fig August 1999 and at the relevant
po.i:nlt.o_f_.tirr_1e alllthe-se«petitioners were the Directors, as such,
they’ai’e.y_answer’a:ble forifurnishing the books of accounts and
other do£.ulnients and further, it is also to be ascertained as to
who is..ifesponsible for non~furnishing of the books of accounts
9’ -_a’i”‘terz5the petitioners resigned from the Directorship and also
9 V. vlxhether the petitioners could be absolved from the liability.
./
xx.»
E0. It is an admitted fact that some of the books of
accounts and other documents were sized by the KSKDC
during August E999. At that reievant point of t.ime-«._ytit1ese
petitioners were the Directors. How far these p_eti–tioner.s”*w:ere
responsibie for the books of accounts,»—whic’h weisetseiized by V
KSIDC, is yet to be ascertained by
to the nature of the appointmen-t,rsi.nce they are’_=said to be the
nominee directors. If there_ is a’riyi_Eapis.e,h’the petitiioineirs are to be
summoned in assessing the dc;cun§en’ts. KSIDC though
they do not oVer”thc—-~eeust0dy of books of
accounts after their-viiesiginaitioni and it is aiso to be ascertained as
to whether they were ixeqiujired to deiiver those documents. Sub-
of iviSV€C{i-{>11 538 provides for a person being an
or the present who is liabie or said to have
[offence/defauit then he wouid be answerable. As
‘such, a matter of enquiry by the learned Magistrate either to
i *..pr»or:eed against the petitioners or to absolve them by Eooking
V V. into the past conduct and the transaction that has taken between
V