9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o negatived. Petitioner no.1 is the company of whom admittedly petitioner nos.3 and 4 are directors. Para 5 specifically states that accused no.1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act of whom the three petitioners before this Court are the persons in-charge and responsible for the conduct of its affairs. They, admittedly, are the working directors of the company. It is also not the case of the petitioners that they were not the directors of the company during the period when the alleged offence was committed. Here is no merit in the revision petition - Decided against the appellants. - CRL. .REV.P. NO. 137 OF 2009, CRL. M.A. NO. 18878 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2014 - INDERMEET KAUR, J. For The Appellant : Chandra Shekhar, Mohit Mathur, Ashish Virmani, Ms. Kritika Khanojia, Danish Chowdhary, Varun Tankha and Pankaj Verma, Advs. For The Respondent : Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG and Ashish Aggarwal Adv. ORDER 1 Petitioner no.1 is the company M/s SRG Infotech Limited. Petitioner no.3 (G.L.Sharma), petitioner no.4 (Sandeep Bansal) along with petitioner no.1 are aggrieved by the order dated 08.4.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the commission of the offence first comes to the knowledge of such a person; submission being reiterated that in this case admittedly knowledge about the offence was known to the Board on 04.01.2000 and cognizance having been taken four years later i.e. on 08.4.2004 is clearly time barred. For this proposition reliance upon (1995) 1 SCC 42 State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and 134(2006) DLT 221 Prashant Goel Vs. State and Anr. The respondent has also not claimed exclusion of time under any of the categories under Section 470 of the Cr.P.C.; their case even otherwise does not fall under that category. Further submission being that extension of period of limitation in certain cases may be granted under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. but even in that category of cases if the Court is to extend the period of limitation it is only after a hearing has been granted to the non-applicant; submission being based on the principle of audi alterem partem that no order can be passed against a party, which prejudicially affects his rights, without notice to him. For this proposition reliance has been placed upon [1981] 3 SCR 349 State of Punjab Vs.Sarwan Singh, 28 (1985) DLT Vino ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int be allowed. Submission being that this is an alternate argument however the foremost submission being that the complaint was within limitation. Attention has also been drawn to the Crl.M.A.No.18878/2010 which was an application filed by the respondent-SEBI (part of the record of this case) wherein a date-wise chart has been appended detailing various dates after January, 2000 wherein fresh complaints had been received by the Board from various sources against petitioner no.1 and that these complaints had lastly been forwarded on 27.5.2002 by the Ministry of Finance to the SEBI; SEBI had reminded the investigating agency to submit its investigation report on 03.7.2003 which was finally submitted and approved by the Board on 09.10.2003. On merits also a prima facie case is made out for summoning. 8 In reply to the last but one argument learned counsel for the petitioners points out that these dates which have now been appended in this application do not form a part of the original complaint and the question of limitation has to be decided dehors this application and based only on the averments contained in the complaint. 9 This Court is in agreement with this submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer shall upon completion of the investigation after taking into account all relevant facts and submissions made by the persons concerned, submit a report to the Board. 17 The wholesome reading of these Regulations thus clearly specify that the Board has the power to order an investigation; this is a preliminary investigation carried out by the Board after giving notice to the suspected person and this is for the purpose of ascertaining whether any prima facie case of guilt is made out against such a person. It does not necessarily mean that the investigation must end into finding of guilt. It can also be the converse. It is only after the investigation is complete and the report has been submitted to the Board that a complaint can be filed under Section 26 of the Said Act and it is the Board alone which can file a complaint. In the case at hand, para 21 of the complaint specifically states that the Board had approved the investigation report on 09.10.2003. Thus the competency of the Board to file the complaint under Section 26 of the said Act arose only on 09.10.2003. 18 There is no reason to disbelieve this averment which has been made in the complaint at this initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... files the complaint will be considered complainants. Assuming that the Delhi Development Authority is the sole complainant and thus, a person aggrieved, and that it has to act through its officers authorized by it, can the knowledge of the inspecting officer be imputed to the DDA? It cannot be, because until the matter comes to the notice of the proper person who is authorized to file a complaint, it cannot be said that the knowledge of the inspecting officers if the knowledge of the DDA. To that extent, I am in respectful agreement with Prithvi Raj J in Gurmeet Kaur (Supra). It will be a matter of inquiry into facts as to when the authority which sanctioned the prosecution came to acquire the knowledge of the offence. Such an enquiry cannot be undertaken over here. 21 The Division Bench of this court in 1995 (33) DRJ (DB) MCD Vs. Sunil Sabharwal had observed as follows: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is not a natural person and thus, unless and until the factum of commission of offence comes to the notice of an officer who is entitled to act as a complainant on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 22 Thus it was only after the investigation report had been submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
