2018 (1) TMI 1710 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking quashment of charges - It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were running Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) and they had collected deposits from about 37 persons to the tune of Rs.1,06,91,632/- and had defaulted in making the payment - Section 305 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The definition of the word person in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code can be incorporated into the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, there can be no cavil that Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) fall within the definition of person as defined in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they can be prosecuted for the offences under the Indian Penal Code as well for the offences under the TNPID Act. This issue is no more res integra, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD. VERSUS MOTOROLA INCORPORATED 2010 (10) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT . Who should represent Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) before the Trial Court? - HELD THAT - It is not the duty of the prosecution nor the Court to nominate the person to represent Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2). Section 305 Cr.P.C., clearly states that the accused Corporation may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial. Dictates of common sense demands that some human being must represent A-1 and A-2 to answer the charges, engage an advocate to defend them and answer the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., etc - liberty is given to Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) to appoint anyone to represent them before the Trial Court and that can be one of the accused or an outsider also, but, with due authorization under the seal of Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2). However, this cannot be a ground for discharging the present petitioner/A-9 from the prosecution. This Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of discharge application by Trial Court for A-9.
2. Violation of Section 305 Cr.P.C. in charge sheet.
3. Representation of corporations in inquiry or trial.
4. Application of Section 219 Cr.P.C. for single charge sheet.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner (A-9) filed for discharge in C.C.No.4 of 2017 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court dismissed the application based on witness testimonies implicating A-9 in the financial establishment's affairs. The Court held that there were prima facie materials to frame charges, emphasizing that disputed facts about A-9's involvement couldn't be resolved at this stage. The discharge was denied as accusations were not groundless, meeting the criteria under Sections 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner argued that showing all partners as representatives of the corporations in the charge sheet violated Section 305 Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that procedural violations like this did not warrant quashing charges. It explained the provisions of Section 305 Cr.P.C. regarding the representation of corporations in legal proceedings, emphasizing that the accused corporations could appoint representatives for trial.

3. The Court addressed the issue of representation for Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) in the trial. It stated that the corporations could appoint any person, including one of the accused, to represent them legally. The Court highlighted that failure to appoint a representative could lead to consequences for the corporations, but it wasn't a ground for discharging A-9 from prosecution.

4. The petitioner contended the application of Section 219 Cr.P.C. due to a single charge sheet covering transactions from 2006-2016. The Court disagreed, citing precedent that in conspiracy charges under Section 120-B, all accused must be tried together as per Section 223 Cr.P.C. Thus, Section 219 Cr.P.C. didn't apply in this case. The Court found the revision case lacking merit and dismissed it, allowing A-9 to raise all grounds during trial proceedings after charges were framed.

Conclusion:
The judgment upheld the Trial Court's decision to dismiss A-9's discharge application, clarified the procedural aspects regarding representation of corporations, and rejected the application of Section 219 Cr.P.C. for multiple accused in conspiracy charges. The Court emphasized the need for legal representation for the accused corporations and allowed A-9 to participate in trial proceedings while addressing concerns about her presence in court due to gender considerations.