9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int, only the names of the Directors are shown and except that nothing has been averred. Therefore, in what capacity the Director could be held responsible is completely vague . Petition dismissed. - CRMP No. 168 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2019 - Mr. Goutam Bhaduri, J. For Petitioner Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer JUDGMENT Heard. 2. The present petition is against the order dated 15.5.2018 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No.75/2018. Vide the said order, the Revisional Court has setaside the order dated 8.9.2017, whereby, notice under Section 138 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Revisional Court failed to take into account the averments made in the revision so as to consider the same at the time of evidence/defence of the respondent. The argument was advanced with the analogy laid down in the matter of Krishna Texport and Capital Markets Limited Vs. Ila A. Agrawal and others, (2015) 8 SCC 28. He would submit that in the said case, the Supreme Court has held that individual notice to the Directors is not necessary as mandatory notice under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 to the Company itself would suffice. It was stated that the Director-respondent can be presumed to be in the known affairs of the Company. He would submit that the ratio which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in cryptic manner, nothing is averred in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Gunmala Sales Private Limited Vs. Anu Mehta and others and other connected matters, (2015) 1 SCC 103, has laid down a ratio that in a case falling under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act, 1881, the basic averments are required to be made against the Director that he was incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the relevant time, when the offence was committed. The Supreme Court further held that if the challenge is made on the ground that such averments have not been made, the Court can very well go into this issue. 11. Reliance placed by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1881 is expected to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and then to proceed further . 13. In the case at hand, on perusal of the complaint, it appears that in para 1, only the particulars of the complainant and the accused have been made, which reads as under : 14. Thus, it is clear that in the above complaint, only the names of the Directors are shown and except that nothing has been averred. Therefore, in what capacity the Director could be held responsible is completely vague, which do not conform to the law laid by the Supreme Court in the matters of Gunmala Sales Private Limited (supra) and Ashoke Mal Bafna (Supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
