2001 (12) TMI 902 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Discharge application under Section 245(2) and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Allegations against the respondent regarding directorship and responsibility for company affairs.
3. Disputed resignation date and manipulation of documents.
4. Prima facie evidence against the respondent as Chairman and Director of the company.

Analysis:
1. The respondent filed discharge applications under Section 245(2) and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming resignation from directorship and non-involvement in the cheque issuance. The trial court rejected the applications, but the Revisional Court allowed them based on lack of evidence suggesting the respondent's involvement at the time of cheque issuance.

2. Allegations were made against the respondent regarding his directorship and responsibility for the company's affairs. The complaint and witness statements indicated that the respondent was the Chairman and Director of the company, in charge of its business. This formed the basis for prima facie evidence against the respondent.

3. The issue of disputed resignation date arose, with the respondent claiming resignation before the cheque issuance. The search report from the Registrar of Companies suggested a discrepancy in the resignation date, leading to suspicions of manipulation. The court emphasized that such factual disputes should be resolved after recording evidence and not at the preliminary stage.

4. The Revisional Court's decision was criticized for relying solely on the respondent's plea and documents without delving into the disputed facts. The court highlighted that if the resignation was manipulated or not in effect during cheque issuance, the respondent, as Chairman/Director, would be deemed responsible for the company's conduct. The court clarified that the Revisional Court should not act as an appellate court and discuss evidence merits prematurely.

In conclusion, the revision was allowed, setting aside the impugned order based on the presence of prima facie evidence against the respondent as Chairman and Director of the company, indicating his responsibility for its business affairs.