9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough: Mr. Manav Gupta, Ms. Esha Dutta and Mr. Sahil Garg, Advocates. Respondents Through: None O R D E R VIBHU BAKHRU, J CRL.M.A. 42571/2019 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing is condoned. 2. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.A.42572/2019 3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.L.P. 701/2019 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.41370/2016 to the extent the Trial Court had acquitted respondent no. 2 (Mr. Sanjeev Gupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bearing no.662601, which had been dishonoured. 7. On 15.03.2014, a fresh cheque (cheque bearing no.662604) for a sum of ₹95 lakhs was handed over to the petitioner. However, the same was also dishonoured. The petitioner states that the said cheque was deposited by him on two occasions and on both occasions, the said cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner alleges that on 10.06.2014, he was informed that respondent no.1 had already deposited a sum of ₹10 lakhs in his account in partial discharge of its liability to refund the sum of ₹95 lakhs. Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued a letter dated 12.06.2014, confirming its liability to pay the remaining amount of ₹85 lakhs and handed over a fresh cheque (cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Black Gravel Infracon Pvt. Ltd. The said evidence established that respondent no.2 was not a director of the respondent no.1 company. 13. The Trial Court held that since respondent no.2 was not a director of the said company and there was no evidence to establish that he was incharge and responsible for the affairs of the company, he could not be held liable for the offences committed by the company. He was, therefore, acquitted of the said offence. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in K. K. Ahuja v. V. K. Vora Anr.: (2009) 10 SCC 48 in support of his contention that even though respondent no.2 was not a director of respondent no.1 company he w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation .- For the purposes of this section,- (a) company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) director , in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 16. In K. K. Ahuja (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:- 16. Having regard to Section 141, when a cheque issued by a company (incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) is dishonoured, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmitting of an offence, was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business would be liable for an offence committed by the said company. In addition, the principal officer, or any other officer of the company who had connived in the commission of an offence, would also be liable. In the present case, there is little evidence to suggest that respondent no.2 was responsible to M/s Black Gravel Infracon Pvt. Ltd. for conduct of its business. In order to establish that respondent no.2 is responsible for the conduct of the offence, the petitioner was required to produce sufficient evidence to establish that the business of the company was being directed by him. 18. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner had dealt with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he was not aware that Mr V. K. Dubey is a director of respondent no.1 company, there is no allegation that the said information had been not concealed or placed in public domain. Information as to principal officers of an incorporated company is available in public domain and therefore, knowledge of the same ought to be imputed to any person dealing with such a company. 21. It is clear from the above that there has been lapse on the part of the petitioner in not issuing any notice to the signatories of the cheques that had been dishonoured or to the persons who are in charge of the affairs of respondent no.1 company, namely, its directors. 22. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
