TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emained pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar since 2008 and thus, more than two years have lapsed in the meantime prays for a direction for early disposal, therefore, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is directed to take up the matter and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. - C.R.L. M.C. NO. 2189 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2010 - INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. G. Madaris, S.K. Pradhan, M. Dalai, B.K. Mishra and J. Pal for the Petitioner. D. Das for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. In this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-Smt. Laxmid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein. Accordingly, the CRL. M. Cs., were allowed and order of cognisance in so far as it concerned other directors was directed to be quashed. 3. Mr. Pal further contends that the present petitioner is similarly circumstanced as the director, who had moved the CRL. M. C. mentioned herein above and against whom order of cognisance has been quashed. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party relied upon the judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Virsa Singh Sidhu [2008] 145 Comp Cas 61 in which their Lordships came to a conclusion that the claim of the petitioner therein that he has resigned from the directorship of the defaulting company prior to the date on whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence : Provided further that where a person is nominated as a director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able for criminal action. It follows from the fact that if a director of a company who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, will not be liable for a criminal offence under the provisions. The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the director (arrayed as an accused) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmitted the offence. (2)Everyone who was in charge of and was responsible for the business of the company. (3)Any other person who is a director or a manager or a secretary or officer of the company with whose connivance or due to whose neglect the company has committed the offence." 7. In the present case the complaint petition itself has been annexed as annexure 1 and in paragraph 7(i) the complainant has made the following complaint, which reads as follows : "7(i). Since Mr. Rajendra Prasad Ram is managing director of the company and Mrs. Lakshmi Devi Ram, Mr. Ashok Kumar Ram, Mr. Niranjan Prasad Ram and Mr. Deepak Kumar Ram are the directors of the company and are committed and looking after the day to day business of the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act was required to be strictly complied with and by making ambiguous statement regarding involvement of other directors other than the managing director, the requirement of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not complied with and therefore, in the absence of any such statement as required under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vis-a-vis the present petitioner, there is no scope for her prosecution and therefore, the cognisance order passed against the present petitioner is quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party states that the case has remained pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar since 2008 and thus, more than two years have lapsed in the meantime prays for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
