DEVA KANTA CHETIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the FIR dated 23.6.10 as well as the proceedings of Umrongso PS Case No. 14/2010 registered under Section 420/465/406/447/506 IPC. I have heard Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A. Dhar for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, for the respondents No. 1, 4 & 5 and Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3.

(2.) The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/S Umrongso Cement Ltd (M/S UCL in short), a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Khanapara, Narengi road, Guwahati and owns a cement plant located at Umrongso in the district of Dima Hasao (formerly known as North Cachar Hills) in the State of Assam. The said cement plant was a 'going concerned' until the year 1999 and due to insurgency problems prevalent in the district, the production activity had to be shut down. As a result, the unit became sick and was eventually declared so by an order dated 18.4.2000 passed under Section 3(1)(0) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)Act, 1985 (SICA in short), issued by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi. As stated in the petition, a proceeding being BIFR Case No. 352/1999 was drawn up before the BIFR under the SICA and a scheme was sanctioned by the Board vide an order dated 31.10.2003 whereunder a Draft Modified Rehabilitation Scheme (DMRS) was submitted which is pending consideration before the BIFR. Thereafter, by an order dated 16.7.2003 passed in the above proceeding a Managing Committee with the CEO of the Company, Special Director of the BIFR and the representatives of the Financial Institutions, was constituted to review the operation of the sick company in all aspects and to closely monitor the revival of the company under the rehabilitation scheme. In the said order dated 16.7.2003, in paragraph 11.2(m) the BIFR directed the M/S UCL to adhere to the shareholding pattern as provided in the scheme and no alteration should be carried out except with BIFR's prior approval.

(3.) It is further stated in the petition that sometime in the early part of the year, 2008, the respondents No. 2 & 3, first informants made an offer to the petitioner(accused) to make 'strategic' investment in the sick company with the long term objective of acquiring stakes in M/S UCL and in terms of the said offer and upon due examination of the records of the company including its balance sheet for the previous year, the informants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU in short) dated 27.3.2008 with the accused petitioner in his 'personal capacity'.