9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of Rs. 4,06,52,202/- was due. Towards the said liability, M/s. Sai Infosystem (India) Limited /A-1 have issued the impugned cheque dated 15.07.2013 for Rs. 4,06,52,202/- in favour of M/s. Rendington (India) Ltd., /Complainant, which was presented on 08.07.2013 and the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds; that M/s. Rendington (India) Ltd., /Complainant has issued the statutory notice dated 05.08.2013 to M/s. Sai Infosystem (India) Limited /A-1 and to all its Directors, namely, A-2 to A-10; that the amount demanded in the notice was not paid and therefore, M/s. Rendington (India) Ltd.,/Complainant have launched a prosecution before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No. 3647 of 2016 under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2014 16 SCC 1. 5. Per contra, Mr.Narendran, learned counsel for the respondent refuted each of the above submissions and his contention will be discussed below:- (a) It is true that Form DIR Nos.11 and 12, can be relied upon as unimpeachable document in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to decide the issues arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Though in Form DIR No.12, the date of resignation of Prem Bhel has been shown as 17.05.2013, the date of acceptance by the Board of Directors is shown as 10.03.2016 and the website of Ministry of Corporate affairs show that it has been filed with ROC only on 10.06.2016. Thus in this case, the Form DIR No. 12 cannot be considered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to quash the proceeding. However, when the complaint is replete with averments, it will be beyond the scope of this Court acting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to give a declaration that those averments are contrived and therefore, the prosecution should be quashed. 9. In SMS Pharmaceuticals supra, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was "whether the Director would be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company." In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that except Managing Director and Joint Managing Director, a Director will not be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the affairs of the Company and that, the complainant must make the necessary alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition is dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and and execute a bond for Rs. 10,000/- without sureties under Section 88 Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall engage an advocate on special Vakalat. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court for questioning under Section 251 Cr.P.C., at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. For the other hearings, the petitioner shall file a petition before the trial Court under Section 317 Cr.PC., giving an undertaking that he will not dispute his identity and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
