Registrar of Companies, Punjab v. Morpen Laboratories Ltd. (cid:133) & Ors.

Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Vijay Aggarwal, B.C. Negi & Aman Sood, Advocates. Surinder Singh, J (oral): In the instant petition preferred under Article 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to cancel the bail, granted by the Magistrate, in various complaints by him against respondents, to issue directions to surrender their passports and debarring them to leave the country without the prior permission of the Ld. Trial Court. As a matter of fact, the respondents except respondents No.5 to 7 are facing trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, in the following complaints:- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Case No. Names of Accused persons. Sections Offences committed 2004 2007 2004 2007 2007 2007 48/1/06 71/3/07 46/1/06 68/3/07 67/3/07

#1. Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 1.Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 1.Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 1.Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh

#1. Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri

#1. Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.Manoj Joshi 4.N.P.Sahni 1.Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 1.Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 1.Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 1.Morepen Labs. Ltd. 2.Sushil Suri 3.P.K.Singh 58-A(10) For non-compliance of the Hon(cid:146)ble Company Law Board Order dated 19.08.03. 58-A & (3A) R/w S-629A For default in re-payment of matured Fixed Deposits. 58-A r/w S-629A Acceptance above limits. of Deposits 58-AA(1) 2(b) 303(2) R/w sub section 3 of 303 Intimation regarding default re-payment of matured Fixed Deposits Rs.20,000/- depositors not given. Return of change of directors not filed. 408(1) R/w S-629A Non appointment of nominee Govt. Directors 269(2) R/w Schedule XIII & S-629A 205-C & S-629A 58-A R/w R-3A, R11 372A(4) Payment exceeding Rs.2 lacs p.m. to two Directors the approval of without Central Govt. Non deposit Investor Education and Protection Fund (I.E.P.F.) Liquid Assets not maintained within 15% limit of deposits. Investment of Rs.49.25 in shares of Dr. crores Morepen out of excess deposits accepted from the public, when the company was in default in repayment of due deposits The respondents 5 to 7 are not named in any of the complaints placed on record, by the petitioner, it is not understood how and why they have been impleaded as the 3 respondents in the petition. Shri Rahul Mahajan, counsel for the petitioner also failed to explain this ambiguity, as to why they were unnecessarily dragged into this matter. However, from the contentions raised in the instant petition, it appears that the respondents have either moved applications seeking their exemption or moved the petitions under Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a single trial on various matters between the same periods arising out of the same transactions and in some of the cases they have also moved the applications for dropping the proceedings as the case having been barred by limitation and also under Section 201 read with Section 322 Cr.P.C. for the return of the complaints for its presentation before the proper court. The respondents are taking legal recourse and it is expected from the court below not to linger on the matter and it should decide the applications on priority and without any delay, of course after hearing the opposite party. In the complaints, the respondents-accused were already granted bail, in all the above cases. In most of the cases the offences are bailable and the petitioner is seeking the relief of canceling their bail, which cannot be legally granted. Otherwise also, there is a specific provision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which inter-alia deals with the cancellation of bail or modification of the conditions for enlargement on bail. Thus, the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in regard to 4 the matter specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable for the relief(s) sought. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Cr.M.P. No.283/2008. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application has become infructuous. August 11, 2008. (Pds) (Surinder Singh) Judge.