TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation for discharge has been rejected. 3. In brief, the facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the plea that two cheques bearing No. 057026, dated 24-2-2008 for ₹ 50,00,000/- and No. 0570207, dated 25-2-2008 for ₹ 50,00,000/- were issued in the name of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 company under the signature of respondent No. 3. Those cheques were presented by respondent No. 1 before the bank and were dishonoured on 22-8-2008. A notice was given by respondent No. 1 to the accused persons on 12-9-2008, which was received on 15-9-2008, but within 15 days the payment was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 520, copy of Form 32 can be taken into account by this Court at this stage. 8. The complaint reveals that the cheques in question were issued on behalf of respondent No. 2 company signed by respondent No. 3 on 24-2-2008 and 25-2-2008 but at that time the petitioner was not a Director. The statutory notice was given on 12-9-2008 which as per the complaint was received by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on 15-9-2008, on that date also the petitioner was not one of the Director of the company. 9. It is also worth noting that respondent No. 1 had given the statutory notice dated 12-9-2008 to respondent Nos. 2 to 5, but no such statutory notice was given to the petitioner, apparently so, because at that point of time the petitioner was not Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness is not sufficient. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley etc., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1090, has held that the Director whose resignation is accepted by the company and that is duly notified to Registrar of the Companies cannot be made accountable and fastened with liability for anything done by company after acceptance of his resignation. The criminal liability of Director must be determined on the date of offence is alleged to have been committed. It has also been settled in this case that uncontroverted documents relating to accused Director's resignation from post of Director of Company can be looked into at this stage. 12. In the matter of National Small Industries Corpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (b) The answer to the question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in the negative. Merely, being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A Director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a Director in such cases. (c) The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes that the Managing Directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
