Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2001 (11) TMI HC This
Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings against the petitioner in multiple criminal cases. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, accused No.2 in various criminal cases, sought to quash the proceedings against him. The primary contention was that he had resigned as Chairman and Director of the first accused company before the alleged transactions took place. The petitioner resigned on 4.10.1999, which was accepted by the Board of Directors, and relevant documents were filed with the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner argued that he was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company during the period in question, making the continuation of proceedings against him an abuse of the legal process. The petitioner relied on legal precedents establishing that a director who resigns is deemed to have resigned from the date of submission of resignation. The court agreed with this position, emphasizing that the petitioner had effectively resigned from his positions in the company before the issuance of the cheques that led to the criminal cases. The court also considered public documents, such as Form No. 32 and the company's Annual Report, to determine the petitioner's status as a director. The court further referenced a judgment where it was held that individuals who cease to be directors of a company cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Citing additional cases, the court reiterated that the status of the petitioner as a director at the relevant time was crucial in determining his liability in the criminal cases. The court concluded that since the petitioner had resigned before the events in question, the proceedings against him were not valid in law. In light of the evidence presented and legal principles applied, the court allowed all the petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in the criminal cases. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's resignation from the company before the alleged offenses occurred, indicating that he could not be held liable for the actions of the company after his resignation.
|