9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ushik, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR And Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR ORDER Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The High Court dismissed the applications of the appellants filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the summoning order in Criminal Complaint No. 408/1 of 2012 on the ground that the appellant is a mere Director of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the persons who are sought to be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence under Section 141 should be, 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. Every person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. Only those persons who were in-charge of and responsibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent No.1 was in-charge of or was responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
