BPL SANYO TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs. RAHUL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed against the action which is being taken by Rahul Agrawal, son of Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, r/o 22, Sitaram Bazar, Brahmpuri, against the petitioner -company and its chairman and directors.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Rahul Agrawal, s/o. Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, named above, filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge, Economic Offences, in respect of transfer of 100 shares having share certificate No. 25308 which was sent to the company and which according to the complainant were sent by the said company after transferring to some other person. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and notices were issued to the accused petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner is a company which has come with a plea that the said shares were sent after transfer to Rahul Agrawal, son of (not known), B -4, Durga Path, behind Jain Clinic, Ambabari. It appears that the said Rahul Agrawal was not the real owner and the person having interest in the said share sold the said share to the Canara Bank (trustee) of Can Bank Mutual Fund. On the statement so given notice was issued by this court to Rahul Agrawal, son of (not known), Durga Path, behind Jain Clinic, Ambabari, Jaipur, and to the Canara Bank as well. The notices were served on Rahul Agrawal on whose behalf Shri Ajay Agrawal appeared on March 7, 1995, and one week's time was prayed for and the time was given. The case was listed on March 14, 1995, when again seven days time was sought. The notices were directed to be issued to the chairman, SEBI, as well. On April 7, 1995, no one appeared on behalf of Ajay Agrawal/Rahul Agrawal and because it was stated by Ajay Agrawal that Rahul Agrawal is a minor and his entire work is being looked after by him, bailable warrants were issued on April 7, 1995, to Shri Ajay Agrawal. Shri Ajay Agrawal appeared on April 24, 1995, and submitted that the shares in dispute were not received by him and have not been sent after transfer, to him. He was directed to file the reply duly supported by an affidavit before the next Monday. No one has appeared on his behalf. The Canara Bank was served on February 13, 1995, and in spite of service no one has appeared on their behalf.

(3.) A contention has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents and also appears to be duly supported by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent, Rahul Agrawal, son of Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, has sold the shares by transfer to the petitioner -company. The petitioner -company has despatched those shares to another Rahul Agrawal and this may be because of the reason that the names of both the persons were common. It is stated by Mr. Kuhad that 200 shares were sent by Rahul Agrawal, son of Raj Kumar Agrawal, and 100 shares were sent by another Rahul Agrawal. In the transfer forms, the name of father was not given by the second Rahul Agrawal and, therefore, so far as 100 shares of Rahul Agrawal, son of Raj Kumar Agrawal are concerned, they were correctly sent and the other 100 shares of Rahul Agrawal whose father's name is not known were also correctly sent. It was the third share certificate of 100 shares which was by mistake sent to Rahul Agrawal, son of (not known). It is submitted that the action of the petitioner was bona fide and mistake has occurred on account of father's name not being given.