TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant that accused no. 4, Sujit Chakravorti although along with other designated as non-Executive Director still they are on various Committees of the Board of Directors overseeing financial, audit and other matters directly related to the conduct of the business of the accused no. 1, the Company. It was also alleged that they were all in charge of and responsible for the conduct and management of the day-to-day business and affairs of the accused no. 1, Kitply Industries Ltd. during the material time. Having regard to what have been stated in paragraph 4 of the complaint as aforesaid, this court is of the opinion, there is no lack of necessary averment as required for prosecuting any Director under section 138 N.I. Act, with the aid of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that he is a Director of the Company and in-charge of the conduct of its business and there must be a specific statement as to how and what manner the concerned Director was in-charge of or was responsible to the accused-Company for the conduct of its business. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of - National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. -vs- Harmeet Singh Paintal Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330 and on a single Judge decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of - Briji Gopal Daga Ors. -vs- State of Kerala Anr. reported in (2013) 181 Comp. Cases 320 (Ker). In addition to that the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that previously the Board of Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, no sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent l was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statures, especially, where such statures create vicarious liability. According to the said decision mere allegation, the accused in- charge of and responsible to the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struments Act with the aid of Section 141 of the said Act. In clause (a) of the said decision, the Apex court observed as follows:- (a) Whether for purposes of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation read as a whole fulfil the requirements of the said section and it is not necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company. Here in this case, there is specific averments that the present petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the accused No. 1, the Company during the material time when the offence was committed. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
