2002 (8) TMI 784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plaint of respondent, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, in his case Ved Prakash Gupta v. Kirti Premraj Jain [Criminal Case No. 67 of 2000] has taken cognizance of an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Such cognizance was taken after record of statement of Vedprakash Gupta, the respondent, under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and protanto for any other offence is not barred. A.P. High Court in B. Mohan Krishnan v. Union of India VI 1995 (2) Crimes 795, has held that no permission of the B.I.F.R. is necessary. The only condition when a prosecution can be barred, can well be understood from the following passage in the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) :-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... direction is necessary in the interest of the sick industrial company or its creditors or shareholders or in the public interest. In a case in which BIFR has submitted its report declaring a company as 'sick' and has also issued a direction under section 22A restraining the company or its directors not to dispose of any of its assets except with consent of the Board then the contention raised on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the control of the accused. It may also be contended that the amount claimed by the complainant is not recoverable from the assets of the company in view of the ban order passed by BIFR. In such circumstances it would be unjust and unfair and against the intent and purpose of the statute to hold that the Directors should be compelled to face trial in a criminal case." (p. 755) The Hon'ble Ape....