9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directors. These petitions are filed by P. Sudhavenkata-lakshmi, one of the accused in these cases, for quashing the complaints against her, contending that she is not the director of the company and is implicated in the case only because she happens to be the wife of the managing director of the company, and as she is of indifferent health. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is not a director in the company and since she is implicated in the case only because she is the wife of the managing director of the company, prosecution against her is liable to be quashed. He relied on G. Surya Prabhavathi v. Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao [1998] 91 Comp. Cas. 223 (AP) and also on Smt. K. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case the specific case of the complainant is that the petitioner also is one of the directors of the company and is in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company and, therefore, is liable for punishment under section 138 of the Act by virtue of section 141 of the Act. In Smt. K. Janaki Manoharan s case ( supra ), the complaint was quashed against some of the directors because there was no allegation regarding their involvement in the offence. In this case there is specific averment that the petitioner and other directors of the company are responsible for and are in charge of day-to-day affairs of the company. In Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. [2000] 99 Comp. Cas. 36 * , the Supreme Court held that three categories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of the company would usually be carried on by the directors of the company. When there is a specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner and other directors are in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company and are running the business and have issued the cheque with an intention to evade payment on some pretext or the other, being fully aware of the consequences of dishonour, it cannot be said that there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner is not a director of the company and that she is not aware of the consequences of the dishonour of the cheques. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the complainant, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that she is not in the board of directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
