9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, he can be held to be guilty of offence under Section 138 of negotiable instruments act, 1881 – Therefore, High Court ought not to have quashed proceedings against such directors – High Court committed error by making observation that not single statement was made in complaint to effect that Accused Nos. 3 to10 were in-charge of day-to-day business of Accused No. 1 – company –thus, impugned order of High Court set aside and Appeals allowed – Decide in favour of Appellant. - Criminal Appeal No.(s). 1846-1847 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - Anil R. Dave And Amitava Roy,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K. K. Mani, Adv., Ms. T. Archana, Adv. For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Anil R. Dave, J. 1. In these appeals, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidpet, Chennai. 4. The present respondents had filed two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the said complaint, which the High Court has allowed to the limited extent, as stated hereinabove. 5. The present appellant, in whose favour the cheque had been issued by Accused No. 2, on behalf of Accused no.1 company, has been aggrieved by the order whereby the proceedings have been quashed in part by the High Court and therefore, the present appeals have been filed by the complainant. 6. Though served, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. It appears from the record that notice issued to Accused no.1 company was refused and whereabouts of all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the complaint, an averment has been made to the effect that all the accused were Directors and incharge of day-to-day business of Accused No. 1 - company and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 9. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court is not right when it has observed in paragraph 7 of the impugned order that the complainant has not whispered a word about the position held by the petitioners herein and there is not even a single statement to the effect that the petitioners are the Directors and as such they are in charge of the day to day business of A1, the Company. It is merely sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause someone is a Director in a company, he cannot be held responsible in respect of a cheque issued on behalf of the company, but if the concerned Director is in-charge of and is responsible to the company for its conduct of business, he can be held to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and therefore, the High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings against such directors. 15. In our opinion, the High Court has committed an error by making an observation that not a single statement was made in the complaint to the effect that Accused Nos. 3 to 10 were in-charge of the day-to-day business of Accused No. 1 - company. 16. It is also pertinent to note that on behalf of the accused company notice was refused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
