SABARMATI PAPERS LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Criminal Case No. 854 of 2005, pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, filed by the respondent No.2 - Registrar of Companies under section 58A(1)(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) read with Rule 3(2)(i)(ii) and Rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short) and Section 58A(6) r/w Section 58 AAA(2) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent No.2 herein - Registrar of Companies had lodged Criminal Case No.854 of 2005 against the petitioners in the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad alleging inter-alia that the petitioner No.1 is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has been registered as Public Limited Company and accused Nos.2 and 3 were directors of the Accused No.1 Company at all relevant time and were liable for default / violation of the Companies Act, 1956 . It is further alleged that the accused No.1 Company has filed Return of the Deposit on 31/3/2011 and in the said Return of Deposit it was disclosed that the deposit under Rule 3(2)(i) of the Rules was for an amount of Rs.51,30,000/-, which was beyond 10% which was permissible and the Company accepted excess deposit under Rule 3(2)(i) more than 10%. Thus, there is violation of provisions as alleged. It was also stated in the said complaint that prior to filing of the complaint, the petitioners were served with show cause notice dtd.29/6/2005, which was replied by the petitioners and there was no satisfactory reply from the petitioners and therefore, the aforesaid complaint has been filed. In the said complaint the learned Magistrate issued Summons / Process against the petitioners and hence the petitioners have preferred present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Mr.Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence, as alleged. It is further submitted that the department has materially erred in considering Rs.25 Lacs as deposit under Rule 2(b) of the Rules. It is submitted that as such the deposit of Rs.25 Lacs was by Shree Hasmukh Patel HUF, who stood as guarantor when the Company took finance from GIIC and therefore, as such considering Rule 2(b)(iii) of the Rules, the same cannot be termed as deposit.