9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi at New Delhi in Crl. Misc. Case No. 4250 of 2012. By the impugned order, the High Court refused to excise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate as also for quashing of the criminal complaint being CC No. 422/1/12 and 423/1/12. The respondent filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act about the dishonour of two cheques bearing No. 001539 dated 12th August, 2012 and cheque no. 001541 dated 12th August, 2012. The trial court by impugned order dated 29th September, 2012 issued summons to the appellants who were accused nos. 7,8, and 10 and other accused persons mentioned in the complaint and the same was issued showing 3rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... controls of all the business affairs of the accused No. 1 company and are responsible for its day to day business. Keeping in view the said specific averment in the complaint, this Court is of the view that neither the present complaint can be quashed nor the summoning order can be set aside." Notice was issued on complainant-respondents. In spite of service of notice respondents have not appeared. It has not been disputed that all the appellants were appointed as Independent Non-Executive Directors of the Board of Directors of the M/s GEI Industrial Systems Ltd.(earlier known as Gammon India Ltd.). This is also apparent from the certificate dated 10 th December, 2012 issued by Chairman and Managing Director of M/s GEI Industrial Systems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of a director in such cases. (c) The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes that the managing director or joint managing director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as managing director or joint managing director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
