G RAVI KUMAR REDDY Vs. MURALI KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case, in brief of, of Respondents 1 to 3, is that they are the shareholders in and the Directors of M/s. R.D.F. Power Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) of which Mr. M. Venkateswarlu was the Managing Director and after a resolution dated 29.12.2001 was passed removing him from that post, the said Venkateswarlu filed a suit in OS No.61 of 2002 for an injunction restraining the Directors i.e., them and the petitioner, from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the company and sought for an injunction during the pendency of the suit and when the petition was dismissed, he preferred appeals and during the course of heanng of those appeals it came to light that the said Mr. M. Venkateswarlu, in collusion with the petitioner, fabricated Form No.2 dated 7-12-2001 on 29-7-2002, signed by the petitioner in his capacity as Director of the Company, which shows that 1,60,000 equity shares of the Company were issued to him and Smt. G. Anita Reddy, knowing it to be false and thus petitioner (A-1) and Smt.G.Anita Reddy (A-2) are liable for punishment under The Companies Act, 1956 (the Act). The learned Special Judge after recording the sworn statement of the first respondent took cognizance of the case against the petitioner only under Section 628 of the Act as C.C.No.82 of 2003 and dismissed the complaint against Smt. G. Anita Reddy (A-2). This petition is filed by A-1 in the said C.C. to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. against him.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 628 of the Act is a general provision and Section 75 of the Act is a specific provision dealing with issuance of shares and since filing of returns in Form No.2 is covered by Section 75 of the Act, the offence alleged falls under Section 75 of the Act only but not under Section 628 of the Act and since the offence under Section 75 of the Act is punishable only with fine and since shares were issued on 30-6-2000 and 21-7-2000, complaint filed in August, 2003, is clearly barred by time, since The Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974, does not apply to cases under the Act. His next contention is that the Special Judge for Economic Offences, being an officer of the rank of a District and Sessions Judge, cannot try the cases under the Act, since appeals against his judgments would lie to Metropolitan Sessions Judge, who also is of the rank of a District Judge and thus Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated. He placed strong reliance on Krebs Biochemicals Limited v. Registrar of Companies, Koti and another, 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 227 (A.P.) = 2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 453 (A.P.), Kena Pentaih v. State, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 861 (A.P.) = 2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 189 (A.P.), Registrar of Companies v. Rajshree Sugar and Chemicals Limited, 2000 (2) ALD (Cri.) 122 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 1643, KM. Shah v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 339, KM Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 Crl.LJ 3779, Jagannathan v. State, 1983 Crl. LJ 1748, K. Hanumantha Rao v. K.Narasimha Rao, 1982 Crl. LJ 734, Jethmal Himmatmal Jain and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Crl. LJ 1813, Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 765, S.A.K. Chinnathambi Chettiar v, G.S. Murugan, (1968) II Comp. LJ 260, P.P. Looke v. N. J Mathew and others, (1967) II Comp. L.J. 146, T.S.R. Murthy v. Elisetti Venkataswamy Naidu and others, (1965) II An.WR 354, A.RAntulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531, and F.J. Heredia v. Registrar of Companies, (2001) 104 CC 230, in support of the contentions raised by him.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that by virtue of a notification in G.O. Rt. No.734 dated 13-3-1981, a Special Court, for trying offences specified in the annexure to the said G.O., was established and since the offences punishable under the Act also are made triable by the said Court, Special Court taking cognizance of the offences under the Act cannot be found fault with and contended that since the limitation begins from the date of knowledge but not the date of the commission of the offence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings.