IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl. R.C. No.1946 of 2023 Dineshchand Surana .. Petitioner - Vs -

The Senior Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Corporate Bhavan, No.29, Rajaji Salai, Ground Floor, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondent Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to set aside the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court to deal with trial of offences under Companies Act in Crl. M.P. No.10258 of 2023 in Spl. C.C. No.1 of 2023.

For Petitioner : Ms. S.Ramya For Respondent : Mr.A.Sriram for Mr.B. Mohan, Spl. PP

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated

04.08.2023 passed by the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court to deal with trial of offences under Companies Act in Crl. M.P. No.10258 of 2023 in

2. The short facts leading to filing of this case are as follows :-

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition that as per the records of the Registrar of Companies, the petitioner was never a Director of M/.Surana Corporation Ltd. (SCL). On the other hand, he was the Managing Director of two Companies, viz., M/s.Surana Industries Ltd., (SIL) and M/s.Surana Power Ltd., which were under liquidation. Based on a complaint lodged against the petitioner for the serious crime of economical offence viz., swindling of huge money from public sector bank, he was arrested and cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 36(c) r/w 447, 143 r/w 147, 178 (8), 188, 447, 448 r/w 129, 131, 447, 448 of Companies Act, 2013 and Section 227 r/w 233, 628 r/w 211, 628 of Companies Act, 1956 and u/s. 420, 120 (B) of IPC by the Special Court. Upon taking cognizance, the Special Court issued the order of summons to the petitioner. Thereafter, the order of remand was extended periodically and is in force. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for cancellation of remand extension before the XV Additional City Civil Court. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition by the order impugned herein. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while extending the remand order, cogent reasons have to be furnished, but the same was not done in the petitioner's case and therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. She further submitted that the period of incarceration. which is more than a year, suffered by the petitioner has not been taken note of. She vehemently argued that due to mechanical order of remand extension, the reputation of the petitioner has been jeopardized. Also, she submitted that the mechanical extension of remand affected the personal liberty as well as the right of the petitioner. She further submitted that final report was submitted by the SFIO and therefore, the question of the petitioner intimidating the witnesses or tampering with the records would not arise, as the the petitioner's assets have already been frozen. She vehemently contended that the doctrine of proportionality has not been followed and as such the non consideration of relevant materials / facts vitiates the remand. Thus, the impugned order suffers from illegality and patent irrationality and the same deserves to be set aside. In support of her contentions, she quoted various judgments and prays for allowing of this petition.

4. Per contra, Mr.B.Mohan, learned Special Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.A. Sriram, learned counsel submitted that after considering the final report submitted by SFIO, and after deciding the issue of cognizance, summons were issued to the petitioner and subsequently remand order was extended frequently. He drew the attention of this Court to gist of the case and submitted that the petitioner being positioned in a higher rank was invo