MOHAN LAL RATHI Vs. ADDITIONAL RAGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE statement as well as order recorded by the learned trial Court indicate that there is a note by the Auditors of the petitioners wherein they have stated that petitioners have not complied with the provisions of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956. This would clearly mean prima facie that the petitioner should have filed retunis in respect of the deposits received by them under the Companies (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules; 1975. Prima facie when their own Auditors are certifying that the petitioners have not complied with the provisions of section 58-A of the Companies Act, 1956, there is reason to believe that some of those deposits might not be falling within the provisions of the exempted deposits. THErefore, at the stage when learned trial Court has ony ordered the framing of charge against the petitioners, it is not possible to say that there is no evidence against the petitioners available for that purpose. In any case, it is not a fit case for invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.