T H CHOWDARY Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are common in all the three petitions. The complaint is also identical except for the relief. The 1st respondent sought for the prosecution of the accused for the offences under Section 63 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short) and under Section 68 of the Act in the two complaints. The 1st respondent also sought for the prosecution of the accused for the offence under Section 628 of the Act in the 3rd complaint. Barring for the three penal provisions, rest of the contents of the complaints in the three cases is not similar but identical. The contentions of both sides are also identical. Consequently, all these three petitions are disposed of through this common order. The petitioner is accused No. 2 in C.C. Nos. 125, 126 and 127 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. In all the cases, there are nine accused. In C.C. No. 125 of 2010, it is contended that the accused are liable for punishment under Section 63 of the Act. In C.C. No. 126 of 2010, it is alleged that the accused are punishable under Section 68 of the Act while in C.C. No. 127 of 2010 the violation was in respect of Section 628 of the Act. Accused No. 1 is M/s. Sibar Software Services (India) Limited, Vijayawada. It is a Company. Accused 2, 3 and 5 to 9 are said to be the Directors of the Company. Accused No. 4 is the Managing Director. Accused No. 1 issued a Prospectus on 08-12-1999 calling for subscription for public issue of Rs. 35,00,000/- of equity shares from 29-12-1999 till 04-01-2000.

(2.) The substratum of the allegation is that the statements made in the Prospectus are knowingly false, so much so, all the accused including accused No. 2 are liable for punishment under Sections 63, 68 and 628 of the Act. The complaint was lodged on 10-3-2010. The Prospectus was issued on 08-12-1999.

(3.) Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for accused No. 2, contended that (a) the complaint did not make out the ingredients of the penal provisions, (b) two of the complaints are barred under Section 468(2)(c) Cr. P.C. and (c) no specific overt acts are made against accused No. 2 in respect of any of the alleged criminal activities and that the case against accused No. 2 consequently deserves to be quashed.