NANDAGOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 374 of 2006 for offences punishable under Section 409, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 120-B of IPC. Crl.O.P.No.5060 has been preferred by A3 & A4 of the case. A1 is the Managing Director of the company & A2 is the Director and custodian of the shares of the company. A3 is the wife of the Chairman and A4 is the mother of A1. A6, the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 1932 of 2008 is one of the staff of the company.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working in the company of the 1st accused from 1992 to 1997 and during which period salary was not given, but 1,20,000 shares were allotted as original allotment. It is the claim that the value of the shares is Rs.50,00,000/- It is alleged that the 1st accused, without the knowledge of the defacto complainant transferred one lakh shares to A3 and 20,000 to A4. For effecting such transfer in the transfer form, prepared by the 1st accused, A6 is alleged to have attested his signature of transferees.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor submits that A3 is the wife of the Chairman and one lakh shares have been transferred in her name. In the transfer form, she has assigned her signature and the same was attested by A6. Opinion has been received from the hand writing expert and it is proved that it is the signature of A3. In view of the relationship of A3 with the 1st accused, it must be assumed that she is the beneficiary of the shares along with A1 and under such circumstances, shares have been transferred only with her knowledge and the fraudulent and dishonest intention attributed to the 1st accused is equally attributable to A3 also. He further submits that there are materials to constitute offences against A3. In so far as A6 is concerned, it is submitted that he will be knowing about the defacto complainant as well as the circumstances in which shares were transferred and since he attested the signature of the transferee, knowledge of dishonest and fraudulent intention can equally be attributed to A6. Adverting to the case against A4, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that based on the report, given by the handwriting expert, stating that it is not the signature of A4, fairly conceded that case pending against her may be quashed.