9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany) and a cheque bearing Nos.968127 & 968236 dated 24.08.2004 & 28.09.2004 for a sum of Rs. 14,904/- and Rs. 56,733/- respectively drawn on City Union Bank of India, Pondicherry in favour of the complainant was issued and the same was dishonoured, when it was presented for encashment. 3. According to the Petitioner, A1 is the Chairman, A2 is the Vice Chairman, A3 to A4 are the Directors and A7 is the Secretary and A8 is the Manager of the M/s.PNL Nihdi Limited and A9 is the said Company. 4. The complainant had invested money into the said Company by way of deposits and when he approached them for withdrawal of the deposits, A9/Company is said to have issued a cheque referred to above in favour of the complainant towards the discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Company, as he has resigned from the Directorship as early as on 5.6.2004, which is evident from the certified copy of Form-32 filed with the Registrar of Companies. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further pointed out that the disputed cheque in this case was issued on 24.08.2004 & 28.09.2004 respectively and during the relevant period, the Petitioner herein was nowhere in the picture and he has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the Company and was not responsible or in charge of the business of the Company at the relevant point of time and as such, the Petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for the offence committed by the Company and other accused. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of the Company at the relevant point of time. 11. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director, M/s.Fidelity Industries Limited and three others Vs. Wipra Finance Limited by Area Manager, Chennai-18 [2001- 1-LW-Crl-603], relying on another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Satish Mehra V. Delhi Administration and another (1996-93-Crimes-85-SC) that the court is within its powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce even before the commencement of trial for the purpose of deciding whether the accused could be discharged, when those documents are not in dispute. 12. In the case on hand, as discussed above, the document viz. Form-32, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant time and the said Company is managed by the Board of Directors and they are responsible for the in charge of the conduct and business of the Company accused No.1. However, cheques referred to in the complaint have been signed by the accused NO.3 and 8 i.e. Shri K.K. Pilania and Shri N.K. Munjal for and on behalf of the accused Company No.1" 14. .... there is no averment in the complaint petition as to how and in what manner the appellant was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company or otherwise responsible for it in regard to its functioning. He had not issued any cheque. How he is responsible for dishonour of the cheque has not been stated. The allegations made in paragraph 3, thus in our opinion do not sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
