TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (6) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The petitioners have now, in the second innings of the proceedings invoked the provisions of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code again calling in question the order dated July 15, 1995, of the learned Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, along with the order dated August 23, 1993, of the learned special judge. The moot question is whether the petitioners can be permitted to invoke the provisions of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code again. This question emerges in the wake of circumstances set out below- (i)The complainant non-petitioner Santosh Tyagi (for short complainant) on January 10, 1995, instituted a complaint against the petitioner in the court of the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, (for short "the trial court"). On February 15, 1995, the learned trial court took cognizance under sections 63 and 116 of the Companies Act, 1956, and issued summons against the petitioners. (ii)The petitioners submitted an application under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code on April 7, 1995, before the trial court objecting to taking of the cognizance and the issue of process requiring the personal presence of the petitioners. The petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rajasthan [1986] Crl LJ 1811 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [1996] 87 Comp. Cas. 849 ; [1996] 5 SCC 591 ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 and Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, AIR 1997 SC 987. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel further contended that on the merits the complaint is wholly devoid of force and the offences alleged are not made out. The complaint is not maintainable at the behest of the complainant who is not a shareholder and the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. The Division Bench of this court in Neeraj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [1996] 2 WLC 215 (Raj), indicated thus : "Though section 397(3) does not limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court but to say that the bar of section 397(3) is not applicable in any case, will amount to setting at naught the limitation imposed by sub-section (3) of section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Looking to the object, with which section 397(3) has been enacted, the powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked to neutral....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even revisional power under section 397(1) read with section 401 of the Code. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out." Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [1997] 8 JT 705 (SC) was a case where the apex court held thus (page 719) : "It is no comfortable thought for the appellants to be told that they could appear before the court which is at a far off place in Ghazipur in the State of Uttar Pradesh to seek their release on bail and then to either move an application under section 245 (2) of the Code or to face trial when the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded makes out no case against them. It is certainly one of those cases where there is an abuse of the process of the law and the courts and the High Court should not have shied away in exercising its jurisdiction. Provisions of articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Code are devised to advance justice and no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efeated on the plea that relief to the aggrieved persons can be granted only at the place where the office of the company was located. Such an approach would frustrate the very purpose of the relevant provisions in the Act and in the other allied Acts. The objection that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction was not sustainable." Regarding the second objection raised on behalf of the petitioners, the learned revisional court observed that prima facie offences under sections 63 and 116 of the Companies Act are made out against the petitioners as conditions of the prospectus of the company were falsified and debentures were not converted into shares according to the conditions of the prospectus. Whether the money was returned or not is a question which is the subject-matter of inquiry. The third objection raised by the petitioners before the revisional court was about the maintainability of the complaint at the behest of the complainant who was not a shareholder. The learned revisional court turned down the argument after placing reliance on P.C. Wadhwa v. S. C. Bhatia [1995] Suppl. 4 SCC 244, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court provided thus (para.3): "The other ground on wh....