SACHIN JAIN Vs. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Sachin Jain who is in custody since 20.05.2019 is arrayed as accused No.28 in the complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter referred to as SFIO) which complaint was filed on 18.09.2017 by the SFIO against 177 accused persons, submits that through the complaint filed by the SFIO through its Assistant Director before the Special Judge (Companies Act) qua the offences punishable under Sections 418/477A/120B of the IPC and Sections 211/297/301/628/629A of the Companies Act, 1956 and offences punishable under Sections 129/184/188/189/447/448 of the Companies Act, 2013, the applicant/petitioner is cited as a Director of following companies:-

(2.) The petitioner further submits that the requirements of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 for institution of a complaint under Section 447 of the said enactment has not been complied with, in as much as, the complaint was not filed by the Director of the SFIO nor by any other officer authorized in that behalf by the Central Government and has rather been filed by the Senior Assistant Director of the SFIO (Dheeraj Kumar) who was neither a Director of the SFIO nor was he specifically authorized under Section 212(6)of the Companies Act, 2013 to file the complaint in relation to a cognizable offence.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that the stringent conditions of Section 212(6) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 do not apply where bail is sought after the completion of investigation and filing of the final report in criminal complaint and is applicable only during the course of investigation. The petitioner further submits that Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 has come into force only on 01.03.2014 and thus, does not apply to the petitioner who in any event is a stranger to all those four companies i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities and Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited wherein he was shown as a Director. The petitioner further submits that though the prosecution has relied on the Memorandum of Association, Resolution, Resignation Letters and share certificates of the four companies i.e. M/s Sampat Financials Planners Private Limited, M/s Subhiksha Securities and Consultants Private Limited, M/s Shadilal Marketing Private Limited and M/s Sanchit Infrabuild Private Limited as having been signed by the petitioner, the petitioner has never signed nor executed any of the said documents and submitted that the same are forged and fabricated bearing his forged signatures. The petitioner submits that there is no document that has been filed by the SFIO to show that the SFIO is a beneficiary of the transactions done by the companies.