MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LTD. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this Criminal Misc. Case assail the order dated 26.8.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No. 248 of 2000 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 406/468/420/422/34 IPC and seek for quashing of the said proceeding in its entirety.

(2.) THE opp. party NO.2 - IPICOL through its, the then Secretary filed the aforesaid complaint case i.e., I.C.C. Case No. 248 of 2000 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners, who are accused in the said complaint case availed a short term loan of Rs. 25.00 crores from the complainant by securing the same on creating second charge on the assets of the company and by pledging of shares. Accordingly, certain shares of Mideast India Limited and MESCO Pharmaceuticals Ltd. were pledged. The complainant on verification out of the pledged shares, some of the share certificates were earlier pleaded as security for the loan taken from the IDBI. It is also stated in the complaint petition that when clarification was sought for in this regard from the accused persons, the accused company by letter dated 23.1.1999 informed the complainant - IPICOL that the shares which were earlier pledged to the IDBI were pledged with the IPICOL due to error in the computerized data system which was discovered in September, 1998 and was duly intimated to IPICOL by the accused company Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (for short, 'the MISL') on 9.10.1998, which according to the complainant, was not received by it. The MISL wanted to pledge 262.98 lakhs numbers of its shares in place of the shares which were already pledged with IDBI, but no pledge agreement has been executed so far. Basing on the above allegations, the complainant alleged that the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 406/468/420/422/34IPC. The learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offences, as stated above, which is challenged before this Court.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that after the petitioners received the summons in the complaint case from the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, they filed an application to recall the order of cognizance along with the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The learned S.D.J.M., however, by a common order dated 18.7.2001 rejected both the applications, which were challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 444 of 2001 and, 726 of 2001 before this Court which ultimately stood dismissed.