TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner-Rupesh Purwar seeking quashing of order dated 01.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03- cum-Special Judge (Companies Act) in CC No. 770 of 2019 and as also to grant him bail in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The facts in brief are that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short "SFIO") started investigation in CC No. 770/2019 and submitted the report on 27.06.2019. Based on the Investigation Report the complaint dated 1.07.2019 was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03- cum- Special Judge (Companies Act), South- West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The petitioner was named as accused at serial no. A-203. He was not e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Financial Statements of the accused No. 2/Company for the FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 in his capacity as the Company Secretary, which he had signed for the purpose of regulatory filing of the Company. There is no active role assigned to the petitioner in the financial mismanagement of the Company. The respondent-SFIO had never requisitioned the petitioner for further investigations nor ever sought physical custody of the petitioner. The petitioner has been regularly appearing before the Trial Court on every date without any default. The investigations got completed and the complaint was filed in the year 2019. For three years thereafter, the petitioner has been regularly appearing in the Court and there is no circumstance for him to be sent to j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for rotation and diversion of funds from BSL. Thereafter, the MCA vide its order dated 08.01.2018 bearing Order No. 5/5/2016-CL-II in exercise of its powers under Section 219 (b) and (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 ordered investigation into 46 other companies associated with BSL. Subsequently, on further revelations made, the MCA vide Order dated 18.01.2019 bearing Order No. 5/5/2016-CL-II in exercise of its powers under Section 219 of the Companies Act ordered investigation into the affairs of 46 other companies. During the investigations it was revealed that ex-promoters of BSL namely Neeraj Singal and Brij Bhushan Singal were controlling directly or indirectly 157 Companies including BSL, which were under investigation. The promoters of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issued in the respective names of the Companies/promoters. 12. BSL and BEL transferred the 'capital advances' to 'CWIP' during the F.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 in their books of accounts and thereby adjusted the receivables from the 18 Category B and 14 Category C Companies. These Companies, who were given the capital advances and had further transferred these to other Companies and continued to show them as Current/ Non- Current Liabilities with matching assets in the form of loans & Advances/ Investments as reflected in Financial Statements of the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. During the period of receiving of Capital Advances till the Financial Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, when the adjustments were done, these Companies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esult of circular transactions and without any actual flow of funds. Various transactions were found to have been undertaken by Brij Bhushan Singal and Neeraj Singal. It was claimed that the petitioner being the Company Secretary of BEL was privy to all Board meetings and was a signatory to the financial statement, wherein there was a major irregularity with respect to investment in BSL. 15. It is thus asserted that as per the investigations it is evident that he was actively involved in the commission of offence and has been declined bail by the learned Special Court. Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, starts with non-obstante clause and the twin conditions stipulated under this Section are mandatory in nature. These conditions ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dates till 01.06.2022. However, on the said date, the learned Trial Court directed the accused to be taken into judicial custody since he had no interim protection from any superior Court. 20. It is significant to note that the accused had been summoned to appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.6.2018 and he thereafter, joined the investigation on 27.09.2018, 29.10.2018 and 20.03.2018. The statements of the petitioner were duly recorded under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is evident that the petitioner had also co-operated and joined the investigations. 21. From the above narration, it is evident that the accused was not arrested either by the Investigating agency during the period of investigations or even thereafter ....