TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resignation simpliciter been questioned. As such, the basis on which liability is sought to be fastened upon the instant appellant(s) is rendered questionable. The record reveals the resignations to have taken place on 9th December 2013 and 12th March 2014. Equally, it is found that the cheques regarding which the dispute has travelled up the courts to have been issued on 22nd March 2014. The latter is clearly, after the appellant(s) have severed their ties with the Respondent- Company and, therefore, can in no way be responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time. Therefore, there are no hesitation in holding that they ought to be then entitled to be discharged from prosecution. All criminal proceedings pertaining to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nges; (c) The appellants, namely, Rajesh Viren Shah and Sanjay Babulal Bhutada in Crl.Appeal Nos ..@ SLP(Crl)No.6905 and SLP(Crl)No.7050 of 2022, respectively, were arrayed as accused in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the N.I.Act in relation to three cheques bearing nos. 002535 for Rs.7,10,085/-; 002777 for Rs.1,85,09,054; and 002791 for Rs.10,00,000/-, all dated 22nd March, 2014, by the Company respondent herein against M/s MIEL e-Security Private Limited and its Directors, with one Mr. Narayanan Kutty Nair, Managing Director, being arrayed as A-2, and A-3 to A-7 being its Directors, including the appellants who were arrayed as A-4 and A-6 respectively. (d) With the dishonouring of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Gujarat (2004) 7 SCC 15 wherein it was observed that:- The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make necessary averments in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every partner knows about the transaction. The obligation of the appellants to prove that at the time the offence was committed they were not in charge of and were not responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm, would arise only when the complainant makes necessary averments in the complaint and establishes that fact 6. A Bench of three learned Judges in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89 observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t(s) in the alleged crime. Particularly, when the appellant(s) had no role in the issuance of the instrument, which is evident from Form 32 (Exh.P.59) issued much prior to the date on which the cheque was drawn and presented for realisation. 9. The veracity of Form-32 has neither been disputed by the Respondent nor has the act of resignation simpliciter been questioned. As such, the basis on which liability is sought to be fastened upon the instant appellant(s) is rendered questionable. 10. The record reveals the resignations to have taken place on 9th December 2013 and 12th March 2014. Equally, we find the cheques regarding which the dispute has travelled up the courts to have been issued on 22nd March 2014. The latter is clearly, af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
