IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3325 of 2010 -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2010 IN CMP 1372/2010 IN CC.36/2009 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------- T.A.ABRAHAM, AGED 68, S/O.POTHEN ABRAHAM THAYYIL HOUSE, OATHERA WEST P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 551, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER B.Z.ABRAHAM, AGED 61, S/O.LATE W.ABRAHAM, KOTTORETHU HOUSE, LAHASSERI, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENTS(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES KERALA, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, BMC ROAD, THRIKKAKKARA, KAKKANAD-682 021. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN,J. ---------------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3325 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November,2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner, who is the second accused in a complaint, filed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Kerala, preferred this revision petition challenging the order dated 19.8.2010 in C.M.P.No.1372 of 2010 in C.C.No.36 of 2009 of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam as his prayer to discharge him from the above case is declined. 2. The specific case against the revision petitioner/second accused is that the first accused/company has accepted deposit from its Directors to the tune of Rs.33,30,000/- on 31.3.2006 and while accepting the above amount from the Directors, the company failed to comply with the rules claimed under Section 58A(ii) of the Companies Act read with Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 and the further allegation is that during the above period, the petitioner, who is the second accused was the Managing Crl.R.PNO.3325 of 2010 :-2-: Director of the company. On the basis of the above factual finding and observation, the learned Magistrate has found that it cannot be said that the charge levelled against the revision petitioner is groundless. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the questions whether such deposits were actually accepted during the above period and also whether the second accused could be fastened with the liability for any violation of law in this regard are all matters to be considered after taking evidence. 3. I find no reason to interfere with the above observation and finding of the court below, especially when the trial court has, after perusal of the records produced by the complainant, found that the offence was committed on 31.3.2006 during which admittedly the petitioner was the Managing Director of the first accused/company. Hence, there is sufficient ground to proceed against the revision petitioner and the decision of the learned Magistrate refusing to discharge the revision petitioner from the above case is legally Crl.R.PNO.3325 of 2010 :-3-: proper and no interference is warranted. Whatever contentions the revision petitioner has got to establish his innocence, he can raise such contentions during the trial by producing his own documents and other evidence, if any. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now working in abroad and he may be exempted from his personal appearance before the court below. It is for the petitioner to approach the trial court and to convince the trial court for exemption from his personal appearance and I am sure that the learned Magistrate will not insist for the physical presence of the revision petitioner unless it is indispensable. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the application, if any, filed by the revision petitioner in this regard and dispose of the same in accordance with merit. Crl.R.PNO.3325 of 2010 :-4-: Subject to the above observation, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.PNO.3325 of 2010 :-5-: