S. SATYANARAYANA versus ENERGO MASCH POWER ENGINEERING & CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1094 · Decided: 26-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 1094 
S. SATYANARAYANA 
v. 
ENERGO MASCH POWER ENGINEERING & 
CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 516-518 of 2010) 
MARCH 26, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
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 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has quashed the complaint 
against the accused persons on the ground of legal 
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. 
E 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (310) ELT 49 (A.P.) 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
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. Chinn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.