VIJAY MALLYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT was pronounced in open Court in the presence of the Counsel appearing for the parties on 14th December 2004 allowing the applications. This matter was the leading matter amongst the group of matters listed on that date for hearing. After the matter was heard and judgment was pronounced, in the following matters, which were heard later on, certain argument was canvassed relying on the reported decisions. As those decisions were not brought to my notice at the hearing of the present applications, I thought it appropriate to inform the Advocates appearing in the present applications about the said decisions and also permit them to reargue the matter. I adopted this course as the judgment which was pronounced in open Court on 14th December 2004 was transcribed later on and yet to be signed, in view of the legal position expounded by the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 371 in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others. The Advocates were accordingly informed, who made themselves available in Chamber at 4.45 p.m. today. They agreed that the judgment, which was pronounced in open Court on 14th December 2004, need not be signed and they would reargue the matters, if placed for hearing tomorrow. Accordingly, the matters are placed for hearing on 23rd December 2004 as agreed. Ordered accordingly. P.C.:

(2.) THE Applicant initially approached for recall of process before the trial Court upon receipt of the summons in relation to the said complaint. However, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court, as recall remedy was unavailable, the Applicant has withdrawn the said application and, instead, preferred the present application for quashing of the said criminal action under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure insofar as the Applicant is concerned.

(3.) ON the other hand, Respondent No. 2 has filed reply affidavit opposing this application. In the affidavit, the Respondent No. 2 Complainant has denied that the Applicant had resigned as Director, as alleged. Besides, reliance is placed on documents to contend that the said documents would clearly establish the position that the Applicant continues to be in charge of the affairs of the accused Company even till recently; and if it is so, would be liable for offence committed by the accused Company. Insofar as the deficiency of allegations so as to indicate the complicity of the Applicant in respect of offence committed by the accused Company is concerned, according to the Respondent No. 2, if the complaint is read as a whole, necessary ingredients so as to indicate the complicity of the Applicant in respect of the offence committed by the accused Company, as is required by section 141 of the Act, are spelt out. According to the Respondent No. 2, the details to establish the said ingredients can be furnished at the trial and the complaint as filed will have to proceed even against the Applicant herein.