IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2009 MR. KUNDANLAL HARILAL DAVE ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE THROUGH THE PI (ECONOMIC OFFENCES CELL) ... Respondent Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate with Ms. Maria Malar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 6th January, 2010 P.C. By the above Criminal Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the Order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Panaji, by which Order, the revision application filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected. The said Revision Application was filed by the Petitioner against the Order of the learned J.M.F.C. 'B' Court, Panaji, directing the framing of charge against the Petitioner under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Petitioner is one of the Directors of one M/s. Venus Life Marketing India Ltd., against whom the charge is that it had induced the Complainant and the other investors to deposit money with the said Company by issuing them preference shares/redeemable preference shares, thereby collected an amount of Rs. 3 crores which it was supposed to return on maturity but which it failed to do so. It is alleged that the Directors closed down the Office of the Company without prior intimation to investors and had absconded. They had opened bank accounts in various banks, deposited the money collected from different investors and transferred the same to Mumbai. It is also alleged against the Directors that on inspection being carried out by the authorised representative of the Registrar of Companies, a detailed report was submitted showing the contraventions and irregularities and, it is on that basis, that a chargesheet was filed against them under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. 3. The principal contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner both before the learned J.M.F.C. and the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, was that the complaint no where makes a reference to the Petitioner as being involved in the offences alleged against him nor do any of the share certificates indicate that he was a signatory to them. It was the case of the Petitioner that he was not in charge of the affairs of the Company during the financial year and hence the prosecution has failed to establish his involvement in the alleged offences. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge has relied upon the final report, in terms of which the offences were committed between the period from 01.01.2000 to 19.10.2004. The record accompanying the final report indicates that the Petitioner was appointed a Director of the said Company w.e.f. 10.10.2003 and merely because there is non-mention of the name of the Petitioner in the final report or the complaint, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge was of the view that it was not an adequate reason to justify his discharge looking to the nature of the transactions and the period during which the transactions were spread out. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge has further gone on to observe that whether the Petitioner was directly instrumental in the transactions or not can be determined at the trial of the said case. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 2960 in the matter of S. N. Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & anr. In the facts of the present case, wherein the record indicates that the Petitioner was a Director from 10.10.2003 and the period of the transactions is from 01.01.2000 to 19.10.2004. The reliance on the said Judgment is therefore misplaced. 5. Having perused the Order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. and the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, in my view, the reasons mentioned by the Courts below do not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*