IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 495 of 2003 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/07/2002 IN CRMP.8381/01 IN ST.36/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. GUJARAT INJECT (KERALA) LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SHRI P.MURALEEDHARAN. 2. A.V.TELANG, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3, PANDURANG, WADI ROAD, BOMBAY-3. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 495 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Dated, 14TH AUGUST 2009 A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.495 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August 2008 ORDER Petitioners are respectively a public limited company and its Managing Director. They are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 73(2)A & (2B) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the allegation that they had failed to refund an amount of Rs.1,500/- to the defacto complainant Smt.Neeru Khatri which she had remitted to the company for purchase of certain shares in February 1992. 2. It appears that the defacto complainant had applied for 300 shares at the rate of call money of Rs.5. It is on record that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Registrar of companies sometime in 1998 and consequently the present complaint was filed by the Assistant Registrar of companies, Ernakulam before the Economic Offences Court in 1999. 3. Though the petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation and requested the court below to drop the proceedings, the said contention was repelled by the court below. The said order passed by the court below is under challenge in this petition. Crl.R.P.No.495 OF 2003 :: 2 :: 4. It was contended by the petitioners that the offence alleged against them would not lie, since the money had already been sent through the Bank of America under certificate of posting as revealed from Annexure A1 which will show that the Bank had forwarded the refund order to Smt.Neeru Khatri on May 25, 1992. Further, the register maintained by the underwriters, the relevant page of which is available on record as Ext.A2, will also show that such a refund order was sent to the defacto complainant in May 1992 itself. 5. But anyhow, it is the admitted position that the petitioners had sent the amount of Rs.1,500/- once again to avoid litigation along with interest thereon to the defacto complainant in 1998 itself when the Registrar of Companies issued a notice to the petitioners. It is also brought to my notice that the company is now in liquidation and the entire assets have been sold away at the intervention of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General and having perused the entire materials available on record and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the prosecution pending against accused need not be continued at this distance of time. Crl.R.P.No.495 OF 2003 :: 3 :: 7. Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.T.No.36/99 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Economic Offences, are quashed invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal R.P. is allowed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes