IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1010 of 2011() ------------------------------------- ST.NO. 464/2009 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- SASIKUMAR.K.S,AGED 51,S/O.SIVARAMA MENON, R/AT AT KAROTH HOUSE,IRIMPANAM P.O, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE,THRIPUNITHURA ,ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA SMT.N.K.SHEEBA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN,BMC ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.1010/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/3/2009 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1010 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in S.T.No.464 of 2009 of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam (for short, "the ACJM”) facing trial for offence punishable under Sec.220(3) of the Companies Act (for short, "the Act”). Petitioner says that he is not in control of affairs of the company, there is no such allegation in the complaint, the company has a Chairman and Managing Director and hence petitioner cannot be prosecuted. Learned counsel contended that petitioner has nothing to do with the company and that he has been malicious intentions with the company. 2. It is seen that the case was taken on file in the year 2009 and it is only after two years that petitioner has come before this Court to quash proceeding. In the complaint, respondent has proceeded on the basis that petitioner is an officer in default within the meaning of Sec.5 of the Act and hence is liable to the penalties laid down under Sec.220(3) of the Act. Since petitioner has come belatedly I do not find reason to interfere at this stage. Petitioner can raise appropriate plea/defence before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Crl.M.C.No.1010 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted permanent exemption. That certainly is a matter which learned ACJM has to consider having regard to the nature of the offence and possibility of any dispute regarding identity of petitioner. If any such request is made learned ACJM has to consider that request having regard to the facts and circumstances including the circumstances and the observations made above and pass appropriate order. This criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-