9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners sought quashing of proceedings pending against them – Held that:- Section 27 of the SEBI Act makes responsible all other Directors of the company who are responsible and in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company, however in a case of conspiracy number of people can be involved and this is the allegation of the Respondent in the complaint - Petition and application are dismissed - CRL. M.C. NO. 766 OF 2010 CRL. M.A. NO. 2778 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2011 - MS. MUKTA GUPTA, J. Joginder Sukhija for the Petitioner. Sanjay Mann for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Mukta Gupta, J. - The Respondents filed a complaint before the Learned CMM, Tis Hazari for offences punishable under Section 24(1) and 27 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the administrative orders passed by this Court. Again since process was not received back, fresh summons were issued against the accused persons. On 15th April, 2005 SEBI was granted an opportunity to furnish the complete details of the accused for enabling the Court to summon the accused and the matter was fixed for 9th September, 2005. However, complete details were not furnished and thus the matter was again adjourned on the 9th September, 2005 and 9th December, 2005. On 10th March, 2006 the complainant submitted to the Court that on account of computerization of the ROC report no details have been supplied as yet to the SEBI. Thus, the matter was adjourned to 26th May, 2006 for further proceedings. Despite all this particulars were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -charge and responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the company cannot fasten the vicarious liability on the Petitioners, there being no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Reliance in this regard is placed on National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal [2010] 154 Comp. Cas. 313/ 98 SCL 407 (SC), G.D. Goyal v. State Crl. M.C. No. 4575 of 2005 decided by this Court on 22.05.2007; Rajesh Bagga v. State [2005] 124 DLT 312; Charanjit Singh v. D.B. Merchant Banking Services Ltd. 1 [2002] BC 489 to contend that only on specific allegations being raised, the Petitioners could have been summoned and not merely by virtue of their being the Directors of the accused company. 5. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the said offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner relate to the offences under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unlike Section 27 of the SEBI Act. Reliance is also placed on Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Krishan Rohtagi [1983] 1 SCC 1 to contend that no case for quashing is made out at this stage as the ingredients in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It is thus stated that no case for quashing of the proceedings is made and the petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he summons having not been issued in the first instance by the Learned Magistrate, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have issued the summons unless the stage under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was arrived at deserves to be rejected. Thus, the reliance of the Petitioner on Ranjit Singh ( supra ) is wholly misconceived. 7. Regarding the issue whether the complaint discloses sufficient evidence against the Petitioners or not, it may be noted that as reproduced above the complaint clearly states that the promoters and Directors of the company in-charge and responsible for the conduct of its affairs have connived with each other and have committed the offence. In K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora [2009] 152 Comp. Cas. 520/ 94 SCL 140 (SC) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssary to bring the case under Section 141 (1). No further averment would be necessary in the complaint, though some particulars will be desirable. They can also be made liable under Section 141 (2) by making necessary averments relating to consent and connivance or negligence, in the complaint, to bring the matter under that sub-section. ( iv ) Other officers of a company cannot be made liable under sub-section (1) of Section 141. Other officers of a company can be made liable only under sub-section (2) of Section 141, be averring in the complaint their position and duties in the company and their role in regard to the issue and dishonour of the cheque, disclosing consent, connivance or negligence." 8. In the present case the offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
