TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Criminal petition challenging SFIO probe into alleged siphoning via shell and puppet companies dismissed; petitioner failed Sec.212(6)(ii) test</h1> HC dismissed the criminal original petition challenging SFIO investigation into alleged siphoning of public funds through shell and puppet companies. ... Investigation of offence by Serious Fraud Investigation Office - offence of siphoning of huge public money availed by way of financial assistance from various banks in the name of some shell Companies and puppet companies - HELD THAT:- It is found that the petitioner has not satisfied with the condition imposed under Sec.212(6)(ii) of Companies Act. Therefore, there is no change of circumstances to grant bail and as per the prosecution, as he played the main role in fraudulent activity. Furthermore, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the offence of transaction was before the year of 2013 prior to the enforcement of Sec.447 of Companies Act, which came into force only on 12.09.2013 and even documents filed would show that the transactions were prior to the year of 2013, however, it needs detailed investigation. However, in paragraph 16 of the earlier order, this court has clearly discussed about this fact also, which needs no interference. Therefore, there is no change of circumstances as already this court elaborately discussed the facts and circumstances. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Summary: The petitioner, arrested on 14.07.2022 for alleged siphoning of public funds under Sections 212(6) and 447 of the Companies Act, sought bail after investigation and filing of the final report. The court noted prosecution allegations that the petitioner played a key role in fraudulent transactions through shell/puppet companies and that the offence is an 'economic offence of such a huge magnitude affecting the society.' The petitioner argued he was appointed only to 'revive and rehabilitate' the group, that many transactions occurred prior to enforcement of Sec.447 (12.09.2013), and that he will cooperate with investigation. The prosecution opposed bail, citing risk of witness tampering and no change in circumstances. Relying on its earlier decision-stating 'the petitioner has not satisfied with the condition imposed under Sec.212(6)(ii) of Companies Act'-the court found 'no change of circumstances' warranting bail, observed the matter requires detailed investigation regarding pre-2013 transactions, and accordingly the petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
