Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.44 of 2008 Dated of Decision: August 11, 2008. Registrar of Companies, Punjab. …..… Petitioner. Versus Morpen Laboratories Ltd. and others. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Vijay Aggarwal, B.C. Negi & Aman Sood, Advocates. Surinder Singh, J (oral): In the instant petition preferred under Article 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to cancel the bail, granted by the Magistrate, in various complaints by him against the respondents, to issue directions to surrender their passports and debarring them to leave the country without the prior permission of the Ld. Trial Court. As a matter of fact, the respondents except respondents No.5 to 7 are facing trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, in the following complaints:- 2 Case No. Names of Accused persons. Sections Offences committed 85/3 of 2004 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 58-A(10) For non-compliance of the Hon’ble Company Law Board Order dated 19.08.03. 69/3 of 2007 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 58-A & (3A) R/w S-629A For default in re-payment of matured Fixed Deposits. 86/3 of 2004 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 58-A r/w S-629A Acceptance of Deposits above limits. 70/3 of 2007 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 58-AA(1) 2(b) Intimation regarding default in re-payment of matured Fixed Deposits up to Rs.20,000/- of small depositors not given. 66/3 of 2007 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 303(2) R/w sub section 3 of 303 Return of change of directors not filed. 65/3 of 2007 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.Manoj Joshi 4.N.P.Sahni 408(1) R/w S-629A Non appointment of nominee Govt. Directors 48/1/06 71/3/07 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 269(2) R/w Schedule XIII & S-629A Payment exceeding Rs.2 lacs p.m. to two Directors without the approval of Central Govt. 46/1/06 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 205-C & S-629A Non deposit in Investor Education and Protection Fund (I.E.P.F.) 68/3/07 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 58-A R/w R-3A, R11 Liquid Assets not maintained within 15% limit of deposits. 67/3/07 1.Morepen Labs.Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 372A(4) Investment of Rs.49.25 crores in shares of Dr. Morepen out of excess deposits accepted from the public, when the company was in default in repayment of due deposits The respondents 5 to 7 are not named in any of the complaints placed on record, by the petitioner, it is not understood how and why they have been impleaded as the 3 respondents in the petition. Shri Rahul Mahajan, counsel for the petitioner also failed to explain this ambiguity, as to why they were unnecessarily dragged into this matter. However, from the contentions raised in the instant petition, it appears that the respondents have either moved applications seeking their exemption or moved the petitions under Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a single trial on various matters between the same periods arising out of the same transactions and in some of the cases they have also moved the applications for dropping the proceedings as the case having been barred by limitation and also under Section 201 read with Section 322 Cr.P.C. for the return of the complaints for its presentation before the proper court. The respondents are taking legal recourse and it is expected from the court below not to linger on the matter and it should decide the applications on priority and without any delay, of course after hearing the opposite party. In the complaints, the respondents-accused were already granted bail, in all the above cases. In most of the cases the offences are bailable and the petitioner is seeking the relief of canceling their bail, which cannot be legally granted. Otherwise also, there is a specific provision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which inter-alia deals with the cancellation of bail or modification of the conditions for enlargement on bail. Thus, the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in regard to 4 the matter specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable for the relief(s) sought. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Cr.M.P. No.283/2008. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application has become infructuous. August 11, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.