SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
Dr. Bindu Rana – Appellant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3643 of 2022 & Crl. M. (BAIL) 1488 of 2022
Decided on : 20-01-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Neeraj Krishan Kaul & Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Mr. Shubham Kumar Jain, Mr. Kaushal Kait, Mr. Jatin Yadav, Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, with Mr. Abhigyan Sidhant, Mr. Arib Ansari, Prosecutor, (SFIO), Mr. Tarun Srivastava, Mr. Vishal Shrivastava, Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocates

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 120B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2), 193 - Companies Act, 2013 - Section 129, 212(8), 447, 436, 212, 621(1) - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Criminal conspiracy - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Punishment for fraud - Ministry of Corporate Affairs - Finally culminated into a criminal - Sick or infirm from the limitations - Application is filed seeking regular bail in an arrest under Section 212(8) of Companies Act, 2013, in relation to the investigation being conducted by Serious Fraud Investigation Office for offence(s) under Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013 - Held, As reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time, object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and deprivation of liberty must be considered as a punishment - Court persuaded to admit the applicant on regular bail pending the trial in Criminal Complaint titled SFIO Vs Educomp Solutions Limited & others - Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of with one surety of like amount to satisfaction of Special Judge/Duty Magistrate - applicant during the period that she is on bail shall not commit any offence whatsoever and in the event of there being any FIR/DD Entry/Complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to State to seek cancellation of bail, which application, if any, would be dealt with on its own merits - Application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in an arrest under Section 212(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as “the Companies Act”), in relation to the investigation being conducted by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (“SFIO”) for offence(s) under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 447 of the Companies Act reads as under:

    “447. Punishment for fraud

Without prejudice to any liability including repayment of any debt under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who is found to be guilty of fraud, [involving an amount of at least ten lakh rupees or one per cent of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower], shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than the amount involved in the fraud, but which may extend to three times the amount involved in the fraud:

Provided that where the fraud in question involves public interest, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three years.

[Provided further that where the fraud involves an amount less than ten lakh rupees or one per cent of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower, and does not involve public interest, any person guilty of such fraud shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to [fifty lakh rupees] or with both.]

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section-

(i) "fraud", in relation to affairs of a company or any body corporate, includes any act, omission, concealment of any fact or abuse of position committed by any person or any other person with the connivance in any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue advantage from, or to injure the interests of, the company or its shareholders or its creditors or any other person, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or wrongful loss;

(ii) "wrongful gain" means the gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled;

(iii) "wrongful loss" means the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing is legally entitled.”

2. The investigation was conducted pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2018, passed by Ministry of Corporate Affairs (hereinafter referred as “MCA”), under Section 212 (1)(c) of the Companies Act.

Brief Facts

3. By order dated 17.08.2018, MCA, Government of India, empowered under Section 212 (1)(c) of the Companies Act, had directed SFIO to conduct an investigation into the affairs of Educomp Solutions Limited (hereinafter referred as “ESL”). The said investigation was directed to be conducted within a period of four months.

4. The investigation is stated to have been carried out till December, 2022, which finally culminated into a criminal complaint under Section 439(2), read with Section 436, Section 212, Section 621(1) of the Companies Act, read with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), before the Special Judge (Companies Act), alleging commission of offences by the accused persons including the applicant herein under Sections 129, 447, 448 of the Companies Act, under Sections 211, 628, 227/233 of the Companies Act, 1956 and under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

5. During the investigation, SFIO exercising power under Section 212(8), arrested the applicant on 14.10.2022.

6. The complaint is filed against 70 accused of which 15 accused are various companies and 55 accused are individuals.

7. As stated above, the investigation was ordered in relation to affairs of ESL. It is mentioned that the company ESL was incorporated on 07.09.1994 with an authorised capital of 40 crores and Mr. Shantanu Prakash was its Managing Director, w.e.f. 07.09.1994.

8. During the course of investigation, approval of the MCA was also obtained for investigating other companies such as Educomp Infrastructure and School Management

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top