9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to prosecution under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Application of section 300 regarding re-trial and bar on subsequent prosecution for the same offence. 3. Examination of the legal basis for prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. Assessment of evidence supporting the allegations of accepting deposits in violation of the Act. 5. Determination of liability as 'officers in default' for the directors of the company. Analysis: 1. The judgment delves into the interpretation of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the prohibition against trying a person again for the same offence or on the same facts for a different offence. The case involves a private limited company and its directors facing allegations under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956. The court examines whether the prosecution under the Companies Act would be barred under section 300 due to prior trials involving similar accusations but under different provisions. 2. Section 300 of the Code establishes that a person acquitted or convicted cannot be retried on the same facts for the same offence or any other offence arising from those facts. The judgment explains the interplay between sections 300, 221, and 220 of the Code. It clarifies that subsequent prosecution for a different offence on the same facts is permissible only if the charge in the prior prosecution did not cover the subsequent offence, as per the provisions of section 221. 3. The court scrutinizes the legal foundation for the prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act, focusing on the specific allegations of accepting deposits exceeding the prescribed limit and failing to repay them within the stipulated period. It contrasts these accusations with previous complaints related to violations of rule 3A and rule 4A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, emphasizing the distinct nature of the present prosecution under the Act. 4. An in-depth analysis of the evidence supporting the charges of accepting deposits in contravention of the Act is conducted. The petitioners challenge the sufficiency of evidence regarding the identification of depositors and the amounts received. The court reviews the trial court and appellate court findings, concluding that the evidence presented substantiates the allegations and upholds the convictions based on admissible legal evidence. 5. The judgment addresses the issue of liability as 'officers in default' attributed to the directors of the company. It examines the roles of the second and third petitioners in managing the company's affairs, emphasizing their responsibilities and actions as indicated by the company's filings under rule 10. The court dismisses the contention challenging the characterization of the petitioners as 'officers in default,' affirming the lower courts' findings on this matter. In conclusion, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, with the court ruling that the present prosecution is not barred under section 300, and upholding the convictions and liabilities established under the Companies Act, 1956.
|
