9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;) was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and having its registered office at 2AB, Gee Gee Emerald, 151 Village Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. The petitioner/accused is the Managing Director of the company at relevant time. An inspection was conducted in the company under Section 209A of the Act. During the course of inspection of the records of the company, the Inspecting Officer/PW2 noticed that Shri Venkatachalapathy is holding 1,76,670 shares in the company, the details of which are as follows:- * On 04.02.1998, 6,160 shares bearing distinctive numbers from 686256 to 692415 are transferred from R. Gopaljee. * On 04.02.1998, 10,900 shares bearing distinctive numbers from 1396709 to 1404608 are transferred from N. Padmanabhan. * On 04.02.1998, 2,570 shares bearing distinctive numbers from 433516 to 436085 are transferred from Gayathri Padmanabhan. * On 20.03.2000, 39,260 shares bearing distinctive numbers from 1487651 to 1526290 by allotment of bonus shares. * On 05.03.2004, 1,17,780 shares bearing distinctive numbers from 1000220 to 10119980 by allotment of right shares. 3. The address of Shri Venkatachalapathy is given as 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1,17,780 shares. The transferor of these shares had received full consideration and no quarrel in this regard. Right shares were paid by the petitioner on behalf of the deity Shri Venkatachalapathy in the year 2004. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent conducted inspection under Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956 between 04.05.2006 and 13.06.2006, noticed the violation of Section 68A of the Act. Thereafter, the show cause notice/Ex. P2 was issued on 09.02.2007, which was replied suitably on 20.03.2007. Not satisfied with the reply/Ex. P3, the complaint was filed against the petitioner. In the complaint, there is no mention about the contents of the show cause notice or reply given by the petitioner, for what reason, the same rejected is not known, it is sine quo non, a requirement to be reflected in the complaint. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the idols are all juristic entities and Shri Venkatachalapathy is the deity worshipped by the petitioner. The shares were held in the name of Shri Venkatachalapathy and in the name of the petitioner. In this case, the evidence of PW1 is that he launched the prosecution based on the inspection carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also clarified that the petitioner is a devotee of Lord Venkatachalapathy, to give respect to Lord Venkatachalapathy, the shares are allowed to be in the name of Lord Venkatachalapathy and the petitioner. Neither the petitioner has any intention to cheat anybody nor violated the provisions of the Act. DW1's evidence stands starring against the prosecution and the same was not seriously challenged and questioned by the prosecution during trial. Further, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court failed to consider the evidence of DW1 and convicted the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for acquittal. 10. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in the case of "Bishwanath and another Versus Sri. Thakur Radha Ballabhji and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1044" for the preposition that the idol of a Hindu temple is a juridical person in whose name the properties can be purchased. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of "Kimsuk Krishna Sinha Versus Securities of Exchange Board of India & Ors." and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Sahara India Real Estate Corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that had it been in the name of the God as contented by the petitioner, it should have been referred to Lord Venkatachalapathy and not Shri Venkatachalapathy. It is for his convenience, the name of Venkatachalapathy has been used by the petitioner. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the complaint was not filed by the Registrar, the lower appellate Court had given a finding that the Registrar includes Assistant Registrar. Likewise for the contention of the petitioner that as per Section 55A of the Act, it is the SEBI to initiate the complaint under Section 68A of the Act, the lower appellate Court gave a finding that the issue is related to holding of shares in the name of fictitious person and therefore, the respondent has ample authority to file the complaint against the petitioner. Thus, the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein are answered by the Court below, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 14. The primary contention of the petitioner is that in reverence, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
