Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Kamal Kumar Kothari And Others - Appellants
Vs.
State Of Tripura And Another - Respondents
Crl. Petn. 58 of 2018
Decided On : 11-02-2019
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 482 CRPC - INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT - FRAMING OF CHARGES - MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PETITION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 397(3) CRPC - EXERCISE OF INHERENT POWER UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC - VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY - SECTION 319 CRPC - INCORPORATION OF THE COMPANY AS AN ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, directors of a company named M/S Guinness Securities Limited (GSL), were charged with offences under Sections 120B/406/420/109 of the IPC for allegedly cheating a complainant by inducing him to invest in shares through GSL and causing him to suffer a loss of Rs.36 lakhs. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the framing of charges against them. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no error in the order of the Magistrate framing charges and that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could not be exercised in the facts of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that: * The earlier application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC was not a bar to the subsequent application, as the High Court had not found any illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders of the Magistrate framing charges against the petitioners. * The application under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable even after dismissal of a revisional application by the Court of Sessions, as the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is paramount and can be invoked in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. * The petitioners could be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by the company, even though the company itself had not been made an accused in the case, as the evidence suggested that the petitioners were directly involved in the alleged fraudulent transactions. * The defect of not incorporating the company as an accused could be cured during the trial by invoking the provisions of Section 319 CrPC, which allows the court to proceed against any person who appears to have committed an offence during the course of an inquiry or trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the earlier application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC was a bar to the subsequent application? 2. Whether the application under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable after dismissal of a revisional application by the Court of Sessions? 3. Whether the petitioners could be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by the company, even though the company itself had not been made an accused in the case? 4. Whether the defect of not incorporating the company as an accused could be cured during the trial?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that: * The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised even after dismissal of a revisional application by the Court of Sessions, as the inherent power is paramount and can be invoked in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. * The directors of a company can be held vicariously liable for offences committed by the company, even though the company itself has not been made an accused in the case, if the evidence suggests that the directors were directly involved in the alleged fraudulent transactions.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC, holding that there was no error in the order of the Magistrate framing charges against them and that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could not be exercised in the facts of the case.
1. The present revisional application is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC for exercising the inherent power of this Court wherein the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No.5), Agartala, West Tripura in connection with Criminal Revision No. 13/2018 arising out of case No. PRC 239/2010 thereby affirming the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala wherein the charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 120B/406/420/109 of the IPC.
2. Facts in a nutshell:
The present petitioners have been arrayed as accused in connection with PRC 239/2010 pending before the learned CJM, West Tripura which corresponds to West Agartala PS case No. 102/2010 dated 13.03.2010 for being the Directors of a Company named and styled as M/S Guinness Securities Limited, (hereinafter referred to as GSL), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at Guinness House, 18, Deshapriya Park Road, Calcutta, 700026.
3. On perusal of the order dated 06.08.2018, I find that one Joydeep Roy Barman lodged as FIR with the Officer-In-Charge of the West Agartala Police Station on 13.03.2010 alleging inter alia, that in the month of November, 2008 one Vibekananda Modak representing himself as an agent of GSL approached him with a proposal that if he invests in shares through GSL, then he would ensure that the informant would get handsome returns. Upon his assurance, the informant Sri Roy Barman investing a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- (Thirty Three lakhs) through shares in GSL. Since the informant, i.e. the respondent No.2 was not informed about the details of transactions in his account he visited the office of GSL at Kolkata wherein he was informed that his account was in debit to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/- (Thirty Six Lakhs). The respondent No.2 held a meeting with the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and one Dipak Parekh, Prabir Chatterjee and Babulal Nolkha were the persons in charge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the GSL.
4. It has further been alleged that the said Vibekananda Modak in collusion with the other persons from the inception of the transaction, had made false and fraudulent representations, and induced him to part with substantial sums of money and thereby cheated him to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/- (Thirty Six Lakhs).
5. The complaint filed by the informant Joydeep Roy Barman, being registered with the police, investigation was conducted and after being satisfied prima facie, the investigating agency submitted their report in final form vide charge sheet No. 44/2015 dated 26.06.2015 under Sections 419/420/120B/109/406 of IPC against the petitioners.
6. After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons against the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before this Court praying therein for quashing the proceedings impugned in the petition. The said application was registered as Crl. Pet. 05/2016. It was disposed of vide order dated 02.02.2016 in the following terms:
"Crl. Pet. 05 of 2016
BEFORE
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:
For the petitioners : Mr. K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. K Roy, Adv. Mr. US Singha, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. A Ghosh, PP.
02.02.2016
After hearing the matter for sometime, I am of the view that as far as this petition is concerned no relief can be granted to the petitioners to quash the criminal proceedings against them at this stage. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the learned trial Court for the following relief’s:
(a) The petitioners may approach the learned trial Court praying for their personal exemption in the case and the trial Court shall keeping in view the age etc. of the petitioners grant them exemption from personal appearance subject to their appearing through counsel. However, it sha
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
