TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e investment scheme and raised a huge amount from the general public in contravention with the SEBI Act and Regulations. Besides the allegations against the company, the allegations against its Directors and promoters who were not arrayed as an accused were that the accused through its promoters/Directors who are the persons in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and all of who actively connived with each other for the commission of the offence. In Para 20 it was further alleged that the accused company and its promoters and Directors in-charge and responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business were liable for the violation of the accused company as provided under Section 27 of the SEBI Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rance. On this date a list was filed naming the Petitioners as the Directors of the said company. It is against this order summoning the Petitioners and framing notices under Section 251 Cr.P.C. that the Petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against the Petitioners and the complaint in the complaint case titled SEBI v. Master Green Forest Ltd. being complaint case No. 1250/2003. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioners were not arrayed as an accused and no summons were issued to them vide order dated 15th December, 2003. It is in the garb of filing the fresh address of the accused that the complainant filed the list of the Directors, shareholders etc. and got them summoned.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1167 to contend that there were specific averments in the complaint regarding the Directors and promoters and that is why they were summoned as the accused vide the order dated 15th December, 2003. However, since details were not available with the Respondents time was granted by the Learned Trial Court to furnish the details i.e. the names and addresses of the accused. The present is not a case where the committal proceedings took place before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge was acting as a Court of original jurisdiction because this Court in exercise of its administrative powers had directed that all complaints of SEBI will be tried by the Learned Additional Sessions Judges. Thus, the Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, 2003 summoning the accused shows that the Learned ACMM has used the word "accordingly all the accused be summoned for 21st February, 2004". The use of these words show that the Learned ACMM was conscious of the fact that besides the accused company i.e. M/s. Master Green Forest Limited there were other accused also. Further the complaint clearly stated that the Directors and promoters of the company who were the persons in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and all of them actively connived with each other for the commission of the offence. Thus, the role of the promoters and Directors was specifically mentioned in the complaint. It was further mentioned that the accused company and its promoters and Directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of, and is responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. It is sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director at the relevant time. This is because the prefix Managing to the word Director makes it clear that they were in charge of and are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. (ii)In the case of a director or an officer of the company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there is no need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company or make any specific allegation about consent, connivance or negligence. The very f....