V G SREERAM Vs. INDUMATI B CHANDACHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to all these petitions being one and the same and as the grounds urged by the petitioners also involve common question of facts and law, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these petitions are heard on merits finally and being disposed of by this common order. As such, the question of considering the I. As. filed for vacating stay in all these cases does not arise inasmuch as the petitions are being disposed of on merits.

(2.) THE facts common to all these petitions briefly state are to the effect that the Karnataka financial Services Ltd. , a registered company having its registered office at Bangalore, which company is accused No. 1 in the private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate made offer to the public in respect of secured Redeemable Non-convertible Bonds, and having been attracted by the high rate of interest offered, the respondents herein who are the complainants before the trial Court, deposited various amounts as mentioned in their respective complaints and were issued bonds. When the bonds got matured, the respective complainanfs requested the above said first accused-company to refund to them the amount along with interest. The first accused company did not return the bond amount in spite of the bond period having been completed and therefore, the respective complainants filed the private complaint before the trial court under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) IT was contended in the complaint filed that the accused mentioned in the complaint were responsible for non-payment of the bond amount and the accused persons had misrepresented the facts inasmuch as although the accused persons were aware of the fact that the first accused-company had filed application for registration with the Reserve Bank of india and the said request came to be rejected and although the Reserve Bank of India had directed the first accused-company to inform the people who had put in their hand earned money and also to take necessary steps to refund the amount deposited by the respective investors who are the complainants in all these cases, the accused persons failed to do so. But on the other hand, the first accused company and the other accused persons continued to receive deposits from the complainants and thus, all the accused persons are liable for being punished under Sections 405, 418, 420 of the I. P. C. and under Sections 58-A (2) (5)and (6) and Section 68 of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint allegations are almost identical in all these cases, Excepting the amount invested by the respective complainants being different sums as could be seen from the particulars furnished in the respective complaints.