I B RAO Vs. REGISTRAR OFCOMPANIES AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three Criminal Petitions, the petitioner is one and the same and the issue involved is also one and the same. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner is A1 in CC.Nos.297, 298 and 299 of 2002 on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.

(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, are: M/s. Royce Marine Products Limited is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956. I.B.Rao (petitioner in these petitions) Y.Ratnagiri Rao, D.Nageswara Prasad and P.V. Rao are Directors/officers of M/s Royce Marine Products Limited. The company came out with a public issue of 59,50,000/- equity shares of Rs.10/- each.for cash at par aggregating to a tune of Rs.5,95,00,000/- by issuing a prospectus dated 26.7.94. The said prospectus was registered in the office of the Registrar of Companies (complainant) on 4.8.94. It was stated in the prospectus that the company was proposing to acquire one more 30 meter Tuna Longliner cum Stern Trawler at a cost of Rs.495 lakhs (US $ 1559000 approx.) with fishhold capacity of 7200 cubic feet from Sea Tech International, Inc., U.S.A. having experience in fishing vessel operations and the vessel would be delivered initially with sufficient quantity of spares and the delivery of the vessel was expected in October, 1994 and the company would commence its commercial operations by November, 1994, as per the Schedule of Implementation of Project as given in the prospectus. Public issue opened for subscription on 31.8.1994 and closed on 5.9.94 and was subscribed about 1.2 times. It is alleged that the company has not acquired the Tuna Longliner cum Stern Trawler from M/s Sea Tech International, Inc., U.S.A. as promised in the prospectus and thereby contravened the requirement under section 628 of the Companies Act. A show cause notice dated 12.6.2002 came to be issued to the company and its Directors including the petitioner. D.N.Prasad (A3), on behalf of the company, issued a reply on 26.6.2002 stating that there was no deliberate intention on their part to contravene the requirement under section 628 of the Companies Act.