MOHANRAJ M SINGHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these four petitions, common issues of facts and law are involved, so also parties are common in all the petitions and therefore, all such petitions are heard and decided together by this common judgment. It seems that the respondent No.2 - Serious Fraud Investigation Office has lodged different complaints against one Company, namely, Mardia Chemicals Limited so also against its Directors and other connected persons like its Officers and Chartered Accountant etc. Such complaints are for the offences punishable u/ss.209(5) r/w.Sections 211(7) and 628 of the Companies Act for non - maintenance of proper books of accounts. Therefore, prima facie though as per the Company Law, it is considered to be a punishable offence, practically, in absence of evidence regarding mens rea and intention to commit offence as alleged, practically, they are technical offences of not following the statutory provision of law, though such breach of statutory provision, may be punishable. Only in one complaint, there is reference of Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the perusal of entire record makes it clear that, practically, there is no prima facie evidence and thereby, there is no reason or substance in the complaint itself to continue the criminal proceedings against several persons after long time of so -called and alleged commission of offence.

(2.) Since we are dealing with different matters together, for the sake of convenience and brevity on record, following details are necessary.

(3.) At this juncture, it cannot be ignored that out of the four different complaints, at least so far as Criminal Case No.08 of 2006 is concerned, the respondent No.2 in all such complaints, namely, Rasiklal Shantilal Mardia has challenged the same order in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.5550 of 2014 and Co -ordinate Bench of this High Court has by its order dated 29.4.2015 while allowing such application, quashed and set -aside the Criminal Complaint No.08 of 2006 so far as applicants in that application are concerned. In that application, there are as many as 10 applicants, which include accused Nos.2 to 6 and 9 to 13. Therefore, practically, the complaint is quashed against practically majority of the accused, but unfortunately because present petitioner could not be joined or could not file the petition with such group of persons, since he has already filed it, for some unknown reason, it has been left undecided. Otherwise, practically, all such applications were required to be listed, heard and decided with this Special Criminal Application No.5550 of 2014.