IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3802 of 2005(A) -------------------------- ST.22/1998 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E .O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED. ----------------------- A.FRANCIS, T.C. NO.6/436-1,LAKE VIEW LANE, VATTIYOORKKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT& STATE. --------------------------------------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 11. 2. THE KERALA STATE HANDICAPPED PERSONS WELFARE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TC 14/490, SREE SARAS, TRIVANDRUM 33. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.R.AJITH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 SRI.N.R.SURESH KUMAR FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3724/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3802/05 //DISMISSED// 10.2.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.No.3802 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the second accused in S.T.Nos.22/98 to 28/98, with the prayer to quash the charge against him in the above cases, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. 2. The facts of the case stated in the petition are as follows: Altogether, seven cases are pending against the petitioner herein for the same offences alleged under Section 220(3)of the Companies Act and the second respondent in this petition is the first accused. The first respondent herein is the complainant in the above cases. The offence alleged against the petitioner is that he has not submitted the profit and loss account of the 2nd respondent-Corporation for the period from 1988-89 to 1994-95. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not file three copies of the balance sheet of the profit and loss account of the Corporation, the second respondent herein as required under Section 220(1) of the Companies Act. True copy of the complaint CRL.M.C.No.3802/05 -2- in S.T.No.22/98 is produced as Annexure I. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on deputation and worked as the Managing Director of the second respondent-Corporation for 10 months only, ie; from 14.11.1996 to 17.9.1997 as revealed from the certificate produced as Annexure-2 and that he cannot be held liable for the non-submission of the profit and loss account by the predecessors in the Office. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein was implicated as an accused in his personal capacity as revealed from Annexure I, due to personal grudge. Annexure-3 is the notice issued to the petitioner herein in the above case. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the Managing Directors of the relevant period are responsible for producing the profit and loss account before the first respondent, the Registrar of Companies, Kerala and for the default of the predecessors in charge of the Corporation, the petitioner herein cannot be made liable. 6. On a perusal of the averments in the petition and also the CRL.M.C.No.3802/05 -3- documents produced as Annexures 1 and 2, it is revealed that the petitioner herein was appointed as the Managing Director on deputation of the second respondent-Kerala State Handicapped Persons Welfare Corporation for the period from 14.11.1996 to 17.9.1997. The offence alleged under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act as revealed from Annexure-I complaint is for the period from 1988-89 to 1994-95. For that period, the petitioner cannot be made liable , who was not working for the relevant period. Therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court and to meet the ends of justice, this petition is allowed to the effect that the charge against the petitioner in S.T.No.22/98 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court(Econonic Offences), Ernakulam is quashed. The prayer made in this petition to quash the charge against the petitioner in S.T.Nos.23/98 to 28/98 cannot be allowed for the reason that there cannot be clubbing of criminal cases as per the procedure of Cr.P.C. With this observation, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn