Once evidence is taken under Section 244 Cr.P.C., Trial court can discharge accused after considering evidence if it feels that no case is made out against accused.

1. These two revisions are against the order dated 2-5-2005 in Crl.M.P.No.995 of 2005 to 1013 of 2005 in C.C.No.14 of 2005 on the file of Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to this revision are as follows:

Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh filed complaint against 35 accused persons for offences under Section 58 A (9), 58 A (10) of the Companies Act and the said complaint is registered as C.C.No.14 of 2005.

3. The allegations in the complaint are as follows:

The first accused is a company incorporated under the provisions of Company Act(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for which accused 2 to 8 are directors who originally invited deposits from public through advertisements and the last advertisement was on 30-6-1997. A.9 was Managing Diredtor,A.10 was Joint Managing Director of A.1 company. A.11, A.12, A.14, A.15, A.22 and A.23 were directors of A.1 company. A.13, A.16 to A.21 are the present directors of A.1 company. A.24 is the Executive Director during the material period of time and A.25 is a company which entered into an agreement with A.1 company and A.25 to A.35 are the persons who gave assurance to the company law board. On the application filed by A.1 company represented by A.12, the Company Law Board passed an order on 29-2-2000 whereunder certain directions were given with regard to repayment of deposits which were to mature thereafter over a period of 12 to 48 months. Company Law Board reviewed the progress of its order dated 29-2-2000 on 2-12-2004 and directed the Registrar of Companies to take appropriate action in terms of Section 58 A (9) and 58A (10) of the Companies Act. Since A.1 has not repaid the deposits that were matured long back and failed to comply with the orders of the Company Law Board as per the scheme formulated by it in spite of extending time for compliance. Department of company affairs and Regional Director of Company Law Board have received number of complaints from the deposit holders with regard to non-payment of deposit amounts as per the Company Law Board orders and all the accused are responsible for the default in payment and they have both individual as well as collective responsibility to discharge the dues to the deposit holders. Therefore, all the accused are liable for punishment under Section 58A (10) for violation of the orders of the Company Law Board.

4. First respondent (A.2 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.995 of 2005), 2nd respondent (A.3 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2005), 3rd respondent (A.4 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.997 of 2005), 4th respondent (A.5 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.Crl.M.P.No.998 of 2005), 5th respondent (A.8 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.999 of 2005), 6th respondent (A.9 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1000 of 2005), 7th respondent (A.10 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1001 of 2005), 8th respondent (A.11 and petitioner Crl.M.P.No.1002 of 2005), 9th respondent (A.12 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1003 of 2005), 10th respondent (A.26 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1004 of 2005), 11th respondent (A.27 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1005 of 2005), 12th respondent (A.28 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1006 of 2005), 13th respondent (A.29 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1007 of 2005), 14th respondent (A.30 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1008 of 2005), 15th respondent (A.31 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1009 of 2005), 16th respondent (A.32 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1010 of 2005), 17th respondent (A.33 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2005), 18th respondent (A.34 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1012 of 2005) and 19th respondent (A.35 and petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1013 of 2005) have filed Criminal M.P.No.995 of 2005 to Crl.M.P.No.1013 of 2005 respectively under Section 245 Cr.P.C. claiming discharge on the ground that no case has been made out against them warranting a trial or further enquiry in the matter.