VINDIA EXPORTS P LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records in C.C.No.60 of 2000, pending on the file of the learned X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash the charge sheet against accused No.5 in C.C.No.60 of 2000 on the file of the X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner would submit that the respondent has filed a final report alleging offences punishable u/s 120B, r/w 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C.No.60 of 2000 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai only against Accused No.1 to 4 ; that he was not initially arrayed as an accused either in the FIR or in the charge sheet and the respondent had not alleged any specific overt or covert act constituting an offence against him; that the respondent CBI after a full fledged and thorough investigation had submitted its final report indicating specifically the role played by each accused but has not whispered even a word about the petitioner in the capacity of a director or otherwise; that subsequently the Trial Court after taking cognizance against all other directors summoned him adding him as 5th accused in the case.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that he has filed Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to discharge him from the alleged offence and the same was dismissed on 2.8.2002; that the charge sheet itself admits that Mr.A.R.Rajasekaran is the Managing Director and the Authorised signatory to operate the Current Account and had submitted the Application Form for obtaining the credit facilities from Bank of India, Purasawalkam Branch, Chennai; that the trial Court has mechanically issued summons to the petitioner without satisfying whether there is any iota of evidence either oral or documentary against him but had included him as an Accused since the company was mentioned represented by 3 directors namely accused No.2 and 3 and the petitioner which is highly arbitrary; that he was not responsible for managing the business of the company nor was he in-charge of the affairs of the company; that the respondent had not produced any evidence to show that he was responsible for the affairs of the company, which is the most essential fact so as to hold him liable for the acts of the company; that there is absolutely no evidence to rope him in a case of criminal conspiracy in the absence of any material to show the meeting of the minds to commit an offence and hence the allegation of committing an offence punishable u/s 120B is groundless and unsustainable; that the trial Court has wrongly concluded in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 that the petitioner as a director of the company would also be liable for the acts done by the company which is inconsistent and contrary to the legal provisions. On such averments, petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra.