ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is presented to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judge for A.P.Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999- cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, and consequently, to quash the said proceedings against the petitioner herein/accused No.7.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that one of the accused filed Transfer Criminal Petition No.2 of 2021 before the High Court to transfer the C.C.No.7 of 2016 and the same was allowed and the said C.C.No.7 of 2016 was transferred to the Principal District Judge, Guntur, and re-numbered as C.C.No.11 of 2021. Now, it has to be treated to quash C.C.No.11 of 2021 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur.

3. Ongole I Town Police has registered a crime No.89 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (hereinafter called, ‘the Financial Establishments Act’) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 read with 2(c) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 against the accused, the petitioner was arrayed as A7.

4. After investigation, charge sheet was forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Police, RO, (CID), Vijayawada, to the Special Judge alleging that Akshaya Gold Farms and Villas India Limited is limited company, having registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and the said company is represented by its Directors (A2 to A23) and all the accused indulged in conspiracy, cheating, misappropriation, violation of provisions of the Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and the accused have collected deposits from gullible public under the guise of real estate business and finally failed to repay the amount to the depositors during the period commencing from 05.11.2007 till the date of filing of the charge sheet.

5. The present Criminal Petition is filed by one Dada Pulla Rao, who is arrayed as A7 in the said case, assailing the aforesaid C.C. on the ground that he was the Director in the aforesaid company and he has submitted his resignation and the same was accepted by the company and it was forwarded to the Registrar of Companies under Form-32 and the Registrar of Companies has confirmed and observed that A7 is not associated with the Company with effect from 20.11.2010. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that as the petitioner was not the Director of the Company and there is no such assertion in the entire charge sheet that he is liable for the day-to-day affairs of the Company during his tenure as Director of the Company and the said crime was registered in the year 2012 and as on the date of registration of the crime, he is no more the Director of the Company. Therefore, he would urge this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A7 by name Dada Pulla Rao.

6. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra1 , where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a Director of the Company is liable to be convicted for the

1 (2014) 16 SCC 1

offence committed by the company if he/she was in-charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any negligence on the part of the Director concerned. The said proposition was laid in the case of State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand2 and the same was followed in Pooja Ravinder Devidasani’s case (1 supra) that when the appellant therein was neither a Director of a company nor in charge, or involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company at the time of commission of the alleged offence and there is not even a wh