S. SATYANARAYANAversusENERGO MASCH POWER ENGINEERING & CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS.

                         (2015] 3 S.C.R. 1094


A                       S. SATYANARAYANA
                                   v.
           ENERGO MASCH POWER ENGINEERING &
                  CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS.
B
                (Criminal Appeal Nos. 516-518 of 2010)
                          MARCH 26, 2015
       [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
c        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Criminal
   proceedings u/s. 1208 rlw s. 420 /PC and uls. 628 of
    Companies Act before Special Court for Economic Offences
   - Application for quashing the proceedings by five of the
-D accused- Proceedings quashed qua the applicants-accused
    on the grounds that the cognizance was taken without
   jurisdiction because the complaint did n_ot make out prima
   facie case for offence uls. 628 and because the complainant
   did not belong to any of the categories who were entitled to
 E file a complaint u/s. 621 of Companies Act- On appeal Held:
    The allegation in the complaint against the accused in
   question was only in respect of ss. 1208 and 420 /PC -
   Hence the proceedings were wrongly quashed - However,
   even if a/legations are in respect of special Acts as a/so /PC,
 F the Special Court would have jurisdiction to try all the offences
   to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - This is also permissible
   by virtue of Notification dated 13.3.1981 issued by
   Government of Andhra Pradesh - Companies Act, 1956 -
   ss. 621 and 628 - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 1208 rlw 420.
G
           Allowing the appeals, the Court
        HELD: 1. The High Court has quashed the complaint
    against the accused persons on the ground of legal

H                                1094
   S. SATYANARAYANA v. ENERGO MASCH POWER            1095
        ENGINEERING & CONSULTING (P) LTD.

defects though no allegation containing such defects A
were made against the said accused persons. It is
obvious from the complaint that there was no allegation
that the accused A4, A5, AG and A9 have committed an
offence under Section G28 of the Companies Act. Such
an allegation of commission of an offence under Section B
G28 of the Companies Act was only against the accused
A10. [Para G] [1101-B-D; 1102-D]
     2.1 The complaint has alleged offence under Section
1208 read with Section 420 of IPC as also Section G28 c
of the Companies Act. It is, therefore, clear that if the
Special Court has jurisdiction to try offences under both
the aforesaid Acts then the trial can certainly continue
in respect of the offences which do not require the
complainant to belong to the categories specified under D
Section G21 of the Companies Act. Thus the trial could
certainly continue against those accused under the IPC.
[Para 8] [1102-E-G]

     2.2 The High Court completely overlooked the fact E
that the complaint made allegations against the accused
A4, A5, AG, A9 and A10 only in respect of Section 1208
and 420 of IPC and there was no reason in law to quash
a complaint against them on the ground that they were
immune from prosecution under Section G28 of the F
Companies Act by virtue of Section G21 of that Act. [Para
9] [1102-G-H; 1103-A]

    2.3 The Special Court is empowered to try the
offences under the Companies Act alongwith other Acts G
by virtue of a notification issued by the erstwhile
Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 13.3.1981 which
empowers such special Courts to try offences under
specified enactments such as The Companies Act, 195G,
The Income-tax Act, 19G1, The Wealth-tax Act, 1957 etc. H
1096        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 3 S.C.R.


 A     [Para 10] [1103-C-D]

         2.4 Even if a number of persons are accused of
    offences under a special enactment such as 'the
    Companies Act and as also the IPC' in respect of the
 B same transaction or facts and even if some could not be
    tried under the special enactment, it is the special court
    alone which would have jurisdiction to try all the offences
    based on the same transaction to avoid multiplicity of
    proceedings. In the present case, all the accused are
 C liable to be tried by the special court in respect of the
    offences under the IPC as well as the Companies Act.
   '[Para 11] [1103-F-H; 1104-A]

           The Superintendent Of Customs Vs. Kannur Abdul
 o     Kader Mohammed Haneefa 2014 (310) ELT49 (A.P.) -
       referred to.

                        Case Law Reference

         2014 (310) ELT 49 (A.P.)      Referred to.   Para 10
 E
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
       Appeal Nos. 516-518 of2010.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2009 of the
 F     High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
       in Criminal Petition Nos. 5493, 5577 & 5658 of 2008.

          Vikas Singh, Vivek Singh, Deepeika Kalia, Kapish Seth,
       Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellant.

 G         K. Ramamurthi, M. A. Chinnasamy, V. Senthil Kumar,·
       Suresh Babu, Ravi Kumar Tomar, R. Venkataraman, V. N.
       Raghupathy for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 H
    S. SATYANARAYANAv. ENERGO MASCH POWER                       1097
         ENGINEERING & CONSULTING (P) LTD.

    S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. These Criminal Appeals are A
preferred by the complainant against the Judgment of the
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
by which the High Court has in exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.) quashed the proceedings in CC No. 37 of 2008 on B
the file of the court of the Special Judge for Economic
Offences at Hyderabad insofar as the accused Nos. A4, A5,
A6, A9 and A10 are concerned.

     2. The complainant i.e. the appellant herein lodged a C
private complaint in his capacity as a Promoter Director of
Sri Satyanarayana Power Private Ltd. - a company
incorporated to generate biomass based power project in
the District of Warangal in the State of Andhra Pradesh
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). The cdmplaint D
was filed in respect of the offences allegedly committed
under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the
'Companies Act') and Sections 1208 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short the 'IPC'). This complaint was filed
in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences at E
Hyderabad.

     3. The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Directors of the
 Company. The accused no. 4 i.e. Energo Masch Power
 Engineering & Consulting Pvt. Ltd. is another Company. F
The accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 are its Directors. Accused
 No. 9 is the Manager of Mis Indian Renewable Energy
 Development Agency (in short 'IREDA') a financing agency
and is brother-in-law of A5 and A6, and accused No. 10 is
a private person, namely Mrs. Sudha Ramani who is said G
to have been given a fictitious authorization in respect of
a Bank account by a resolution of the company.

    4. In brief, it was alleged that the accused entered into
a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and the           H
1098         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 3 S.C.R.


 A Company. Further, accused A1 to A3 made false
   declaration in regard to record maintained under the
   provisions of the Companies Act, and filed a false
   declaration purporting to be an extract of Board Resolution
   of the Company before Andhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch,
 B Chennai in order to open a bank account. According to the
   complainant the signatory to the Board Resolution was not
   even a Director in the Company on the date the bank
   account was opened. A series of events alleged in the
   complaint show how the complainant was induced to invest
 C in the Company by acquiring land for the Company at a
   cost of Rs. 20 lakhs and make payment for the front end
   fee to IREDA which had in collusion with the other accused
   sanctioned the financial assistance to the Company to the
 D extent of Rs. 11.50 crores subject to the condition that the
   promoters should invest Rs. 4.98 crores as their
   contribution towards the total project cost of Rs. 16.48
   crores.

            5. According to the complainant, accused A9 - the
 E     Manager of IREDA, suggested that the company should
       appoint A4 Company as a contractor representing that the
       Directors of the said A4 Company i.e. A5 and A6 in reality
       his brother-in-law, have wide experience in executing such
 F     projects. The complainant believed that representation and
       allowed those persons and others to become Director as
       a result of which A 1 along with his nominee Directors
       enjoyed a majority on the Board of the Company.
       Thereafter, in order to obtain the first installment of loan the
 G     accused represented that they have spent an amount of
       Rs. 1,88,21,484/-, to the accused A4 Company as if the
       amount was invested from the Company's account
       maintained in Andhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch. On such
       a representation, A9 IREDA released the first installment
 H     of loan. The accused again induced A9 to release the
  S. SATYANARAYANA v. ENERGO MASCH POWER            1099
ENGINEERING & CONSULTING (P) LTD. [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

second installment of loan of Rs. 2.85 crores without the    A
knowledge of the complainant and without submitting any
Board Resolution of the Company. A major amount of the
loan was paid to the accused A4 Company, which had not
done any substantial work. Though Rs. 145 lakhs from the
first installment of loan and Rs. 92 lakhs from the second   B
installment of loan were paid to the A4 Company only a
nominal amount of Rs. 30 lakhs was used for work and the
rest was swindled. As a part of these transactions the
complainant alleged that A 1 to A3 had made a false
declaration as records in a purported Board Resolution of    C
the Company in order to open a bank account and falsely
authorised A 10 and thereby made a false declaration
amounting to an offence under Section 628 of the
Companies Act. Thus. A 10 was falsely authorized to
                                                             0
operate the bank account.

    6. It will thus be seen from the above that according
to the complainant the transactions of all the accused
persons in con:;piracy with each other amounted to
offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and          E
Section 628 of the Companies Act.

    7. Against the complaint. the following accused-namely
A4 Company; its Directors A5 and A6; A9 the manager of
the IREDA; and A 10 the private person approached the F
High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The High
Court took the view that the Special Judge could not have
taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 120B and
420 of the IPC unless he could also try the accused under
Section 621 of the Companies Act. As regards the G
accused Company A4 and its Directors A5 and A6, the
High Court held that no cognizance could be taken against
the said accused because the complainant did not belong
to any of the categories or persons who were entitled to H
     1100           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2015] 3 S.C.R.


      A file a complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act'
        i.e. to say the complainant was neither (a) the Registrar,
        (b) a shareholder of the company, or (c) a person
        authorized in that behalf. Thus, the High Court held that
        taking of cognizance by the Special Court in so far as
      B accused nos. A4, A5 and A6 is without jurisdiction. This
        finding is sought to be supported by the provisions of
        Section 621(1) of the Companies Act. However, without
        giving any special reasons as regards accused Nos. A9
        and A 10 the High Court quashed the taking of cognizance.
      c
            1 "621. Offences against Act to be cognizable only on complaint by
                Registrar, shareholder or Government-

            (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act which
      D         is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer
                thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the Registrar, or of a
                shareholder of the company, or of a person authorised by the Central
                Government in that behalf·

            Provided that nothing in this sub- seciion shall apply to a prosecution by
      E        a company of any of its officers.

            [Provided further that the Court may take cognizance of offence relating
                to issue and transfer of securities and non-payment of dividend on
                a  complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Securities
                Exchange Board of India].

      F     1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
               Procedure, 1898 , (5 of 1898) where the complainant under sub-
               section (1) is the Registrar or a person authorised by the Central
               Government, the personal attendance of the complainant before
               the Court trying the offence shall not be necessary unless the Court
               for reasons to be recorded in writing requires his personal attendance
      G        at the trial.]

            (2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the liquidator
                of a company in respect of any offence alleged to have been
·I              committed in respect of any of the matters included in Part VII
                (sections 425 to 560) or in any other provision of this Act relating to
      H         the winding up of companies.
   S. SATYANARAYANA v. ENERGO MASCH POWER           1101
ENGINEERING & CONSULTING (P) LTD. [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

In fact A9 is the manager of IREDA a financing agency                          A
and A 10 is a private person and are prim a facie not a
company or officers of a Company vide Section 621. The
High Court has not committed any error in reading Section
621 of the Companies Act and observing an accused
cannot be prosecuted under Section 621 of the                                  B
Companies Act because the complainant is not a share
holder in the accused Company. However, it is obvious
from the complaint that there was no allegation that the
accused Nos. A4, AS, A6 and A9 have committed an
offence under Section 628 of the Companies Act. Such                           C
an allegation of commission of an offence under Section
628 of the Companies Act was only against the accused
A10 (vide para 19 and 20 of the complaint). It may be
recalled that the allegation as regards Section 628 2 of the
                                                                               0
Companies Act is said to have been committed by the
accused A 1 to A3 by making a false declaration with
regard to the record that is maintained in accordance with
Section 193 of the Companies Act.by filing an extract of
                                                                               E
(3) A liquidator of a company shall not be deemed to be an officer of the
     company, within the meaning of sub- section (1)."

2 628. Penalty for false statements.- If in any return, report, certificate,
   balance sheet, prospectus, statement or other document required             F
   by or forthe purposes of any of the provisions of this Act, any person
   makes a statement-

(a) which is false in any material particular, knowing it to be false; or
                                                                               G
(b) which omits any material fact knowing it to be material,

   he shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be punish-
    able with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years,
    and shall also be liable to fine.
                                                                               H
1102      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 3 S.C.R.


 A the Board resolution of the company before the Andhra
   Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai in order to open a bank
   account 'the said Board resolution being a false
   declaration,' since a bank account in the said bank was .
   already opened even before A 1 had obtained consent of
 B the complainant to open the said account and further since
   the said Board resolution is signed by Hari Sesha Reddy
   - A3 who was not even a Director in the company as on
   the date of the opening of the bank account. The offence
   alleged against A 10 was that she had drawn huge
 C amounts through self cheques in the capacity of the
   authorized signatory of the company. It is surprising to see
   that the High Court has quashed the complaint against the
   accused persons on the ground of legal defects though no
 D allegation containing such defects were made against the
   said accused persons.

        8. As can be seen from the complaint the allegations
   are that the accused conspired with each other to cheat the
                 •
   complainant and a series of transactions gave rise to
 E offence under Section 1208 read with Section 420 of the
   Indian Penal Code as also Section 628 of the Companies
   Act. It is, therefore, clear that if the Special Court has
   jurisdiction to try offences under both the aforesaid Acts
 F then the trial can certainly continue in respect of the
   offences which do not require the complainant to belong to
   the categories specified under Section 621 of the
   Companies Act. Thus the trial could certainly continue
   against those accused under the IPC.
 G      9. The High Court completely overlooked the fact that
   the complaint made allegations against the accused A4, A5,
   A6, A9 and A10 only in respect of Section 1208 and 420
   of Indian Penal Code and there was no reason in law to
 H quash a complaint against them on the ground that they
   S. SATYANARAYANA v. EN ERGO MASCH POWER          1103
ENGINEERING & CONSULTING (P) LTD. [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

were immune from prosecution under Section 628 of the A
Companies Act by virtue of Section 621 of that Act.

     10. We accordingly set aside the findings of the High
Court that taking of cognizance against the accused A4, A5,
A6 and A9 is without jurisdiction on the ground that the B
complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the
offences under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956
against the said accused. At t~.is stage, it may be noted
that the Special Court is empowered to try the offences
under the Companies Act alongwith other Acts by virtue of C
a notification issued by the erstwhile Government of Andhra
Pradesh dated 13.3.1981 which empowers such special
Courts to try offences under specified enactments such as
The Companies Act, 1956, The Income-tax Act, 1961, The
Wealth-tax Act, 1957 etc., which reads as follows:-         D

     "even if such cases include offences punishable under
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any other enactments, if
such offences form part of the same transaction."
                                                             E
    [vide Notification reproduced in Criminal Petition No.
5846 of 2014 The Superintendent Of Customs Vs.
Kannur Abdul Kader Mohammed Haneefa reported in
2014 (310) ELT49(A.P.)]
                                                             F
     11. Thus, even if a number of persons are accused of
offences under a special enactment such as 'the
Companies Act and as also the IPC' in respect of the same
transaction or facts and even if some could not be tried
under the special enactment, it is the special court alone G
which would have jurisdiction to try all the offences based
on the same transaction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
We make this obse.rvation because at some stage in the
hearing learned counsels addressed us on this point. We
                                                             H
     1104         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 3 S.C.R.


      A make it clear that in the present case all the accused are
        liable to be tried by the special court in respect of the
        offences under the IPC as well as the Companies Act as
        alleged in the complaint.

                 12. Appeals are allowed in above terms.
            Kalpana K. Tripathy                        Appeals allowed.




.,