The court determines that without proof of non-directional status, discharge from criminal prosecution is not warranted.

O R D E R

The 11^th accused in C.C.No.459/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara, has filed this petition, aggrieved by the dismissal of C.M.P.No.196/2017 filed by him before the learned Magistrate seeking discharge from the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case.

2. The final report in the said case was filed by the CBCID, Economic Offences Wing alleging the commission of offences under Section s 406 & 420 read with Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, Section s 58 (b), 4A & 58(c) of the Reserve Bank of India Act , 1934, and Section 3 of the Kerala Chitties Act , 1977. The allegation against the accused is that they collected huge amounts of money extending up to Rs.14,00,73,847/- from various depositors without licence and conducted chitties, and thereafter failed to repay the amount with interest, as assured, to the depositors.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is neither a shareholder nor Director in the accused company, and hence he is not liable to be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. It is further contended by the petitioner that in a writ petition filed by him before this Court as W.P.(C)No.27452/2016, a judgment had been rendered on 19.07.2017, directing the Registrar of Companies to conduct an enquiry and scrutinise the relevant records as to how the petitioner happened to be shown as a Director of the accused company, and to issue the necessary orders for the rectification of the defects if it so happened due to a mistake.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. In the order dated 12.05.2017 declining to accept the prayer of discharge of the petitioner, it has been categorically held by the learned Magistrate that the relevant records procured from the Registrar of Companies revealed that accused Nos.11 (petitioner herein), 12, 13, 15, 16 & 22 were shown as Directors of the company by name ‘M/s Business India Shares & Insurances Pvt. Ltd.’ The learned Magistrate relied on the observations of this Court in the judgment rendered on 21.11.2017 in Company Petition No.41/2009 to hold that the company by name M/s Business India Shares & Insurances Pvt. Ltd. formed part of the entity ‘Business India Group’ which was involved in the collection of money from the public and the failure to repay the same. The learned Magistrate further observed that as per the Articles of Association of M/s Business India Shares & Insurances Pvt. Ltd., the Directors are to manage the affairs of the company. It is in the light of the aforesaid aspects revealed from the records that the learned Magistrate declined to allow the prayer of discharge of the petitioner.

6. It is true that in the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No.27452/2016 the Registrar of the Companies was directed to scrutinise the records and to pass the necessary orders of correction, if the petitioner’s name is wrongly shown as one of the Directors of the company by name M/s Business India Shares & Insurances Pvt. Ltd. However, the petitioner did not bring on record any document to show that the enquiry and scrutiny conducted by the Registrar of Companies in compliance with the aforesaid direction of this Court on 19.07.2017 disclosed that the name of the petitioner has been wrongly shown as one of the Directors of the aforesaid company, or that the necessary orders were passed for making corrections. In the above circumstances, the mere fact that this Court issued a direction in the judgment dated 19.07.2017 in W.P.(C)No.27452/2016 to the Registrar of Companies to conduct an enquiry and to make corrections in the relevant records if the name of the petitioner