RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. V KRISHNAPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to E.O.C.C.No,383 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EOW-1, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the order dated 29.11.2005 in Crl.M.P.No,3025 of 2005 in E.O.C.C.No,383 of 2003. Challenging and impugning the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EOW-1, Egmore,Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No,3025 of 2005 in E.O.C.C.No,383 of 2003, this revision case is focussed.

(2.) THE long and short of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: THE petitioner herein filed the complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, which was taken on file as E.O.C.C.No,383 of 2003 for the offences under Section 45 QA read with 58-B and 58-C of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(the 'Act'). THE learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused two in number. Whereupon the second accused-the respondent herein filed the Crl.M.P.No,3025 of 2006 before the said Magistrate under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the complaint, on the main ground that he had resigned his post as Chief Executive Officer well before the occurrence of the alleged offences, as per the case of the complainant. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate allowed the said application discharging the respondent/A2 from the criminal case. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, this revision is focussed on the following grounds, the sum and substance of the same would run thus:- THE learned Magistrate failed to note that even before the respondent/A2 having allegedly resigned from his post as Chief Executive Officer of the A1 company, there were violations by him and as such, he cannot wriggle out of his liability.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner read out the order passed by the lower Court and in that there is no whisper about those material facts.