9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of the directors of Anubhav Plantation Ltd. and other group of companies, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, of which, one Mr. Natesan was the chairman and managing director. It appears that a criminal case was registered against the said Natesan and others, on October 13, 199,8, for an alleged cheating of deposits made by the public, to the tune of Rs. 268 crores, under various agro schemes, which is now pending in C. C. No. 1067 of 1999, in which the petitioner is also implicated as one of the accused. Of course, the said Mr. Natesan is detained in judicial custody, in the said case, viz ., C. C. No. 1067 of 1999. In the meanwhile, this court, in Company Application Nos. 479 and 480 of 1999 in Company Petition No. 130 of 1999, preferred by Anubhav Plantation Ltd., by order dated September 29, 1999, observed that unless effective steps were taken by the Government and by the police to bring the culprits to book, the financial adventurers would continue to make money with the depositors' funds and syphon off the funds and they would do so confident in the knowledge that the investigating arm of the State would be unable to investigate the crime sufficie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anubhav group of companies, in which Mr. Natesan was the chairman and managing director. Taking note of the earlier modification dated January 11, 1999, in Crl. O.P. No. 21054 of 1999 and the order dated March 12,1999, made in Crl. M. P. No. 1828 of 1999 directing to remove the seal of the office premises of Anubhav Agrotech at No. 2, Rutland Gate, V Street, Chennai-6, this court, by order dated August 17, 1999 in Crl. M. P. No. 3550 of 1999, directed the respondent-police to return the vehicles, viz ., Tata Sierra car bearing registration No. KA-04n-124 and Honda City car bearing registration No. DI-IC-6711 and to remove the seals in new door No. 2, Harrington Road, 15th Avenue, Chetput, Chennai and at No. 66 Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14. Mr. Natesan, chairman and managing director of Anubhav Plantation Ltd. and other group of companies, moved an application, viz ., Crl. O.P. No. 20501 of 1999 on January 8, 1999, before this court, represented by Mr. Ashokan, learned senior counsel, on the ground that even though he had surrendered on October 23, 1998 and kept under judicial custody in C. C. No. 1067 of 1999, for the past 14 months without trial, infringing his persona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nubhav Agrotech Ltd., nor actively associated with the affairs of the Anubhav Agrotech Ltd., nor was he a party to alleged criminal conspiracy, nor was he responsible for diverting the funds of Anubhav Plantation to Anubhav Agrotech Ltd., at any point of time, nor had he dealt with any financial affairs of Anubhav Plantation or any of the Anubhav group of companies much less Anubhav Agrotech Ltd. Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel also contends that the petitioner was never served with any summons in C. C. No. 1067 of 1999, to appear before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, nor was he aware of the non-bailable warrant in C. C No. 1067 of 1999 pending against him and in any event, the petitioner is prepared to appear before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, in the above case, regularly, without fail, to show his bona fide s and therefore, it is just and necessary to recall the non-bailable warrant pending against him, considering the special facts and circumstances of the case, instead of moving the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. Mr. M. Ravindran, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttoor District on Bangalore-Madras Trunk Road, worth about rupees six crores, by Mr. T. V. Giri Rao, who was once, admittedly, a director of Anubhav Plantation Ltd. and subsequently resigned and also the first director and promoter of Anubhav Agrotech Ltd., in which the petitioner of herein was also, admittedly, a director from February 7,1996 to September 3,1997. He also contends that the petitioner is not entitled to contend that he is in no way connected with the alleged criminal conspiracy, as the lifting of corporate veil is not permissible at this stage. I have bestowed my careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. As held by the apex court in a catena of decisions, viz ., Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702; AIR 1969 SC 932, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. [1986] 59 Comp. Cas. 548 (SC); [1986] 1 SCC 334, State of U. P. v. Renu Sagar Power Co., AIR 1988 SC 1737 ; [1991] 70 Comp. Cas. 127 and Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. ( P. ) Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2005 ; [1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 362 ; in the offences relating to the diversion of funds of corporate bodies, the court can, no doubt pierce through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be properly dealt with only by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Chennai-8, in an application under section 70(2), Criminal Procedure Code as rightly pointed by Mr. N. R. Elango, learned Government advocate, placing reliance on the decisions Saleem P. A. v. Inspector of Police [1994] 2 LW (Crl.) 402 and in Sundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu [1995] 2 LW (Crl.) 564, wherein it is held that the accused are not entitled to approach this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code either for recalling the warrant or for anticipatory bail without invoking section 70(2), Criminal Procedure Code. Even though Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that under the special facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court invoking section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to recall the non-bailable warrant pending against him in C. C. No. 1067 of 1999, I have no hesitation to hold that the very admitted special facts and circumstances of the case require this court to direct the respondent to execute the non-bailable warrant pending against the petitioner in cold storage, lying fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
