9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who was Deputy General Manager and the authorized signatory of accused No. 1-Company. The issue no more res-integra in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 141 of the Act and the law laid down in catena of judgments of the Apex Court including the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 141 of the Act provides that, when an offence is committed by the company, the officer in-charge, who was responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In the instant case, the petitioners herein are sought to be prosecuted solely in their capac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 and 628/2010 and by order dated 01.07.2014, both the petitions were dismissed. The petitioners carried the matters in the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9133-9134/2014 and by order dated 10.08.2015, the petitioners were granted liberty to apply for their discharge in which event, the trial Court was directed to consider the same on merits. Accordingly, the petitioners moved applications before the trial Court seeking their discharge on the ground that the petitioners herein were mere nominee Directors of accused No. 1-Company and they ceased to be Directors with effect from 08.01.2009 on account of their resignation and also on other grounds. 3. Learned Magistrate, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the directorship of the Company. It may be true that as to exactly on what date the said resignation was accepted by the Company is not known, but, even otherwise, there is no averment in the complaint petitions as to how and in what manner the appellant was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning. He had not issued any cheque. How he is responsible for dishonour of the cheque has not been stated. The allegations made in para 3, thus in our opinion do not satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act . 5. The respondent is duly served and unrepresented. Hence, considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1-Company. Notwithstanding the contentions urged by the petitioners that at the time of alleged dishonour of the cheques, the petitioners had tendered resignation, yet, the question that arises for consideration is whether on account of being the nominee Directors of accused No. 1-Company, the petitioners could be held liable to answer the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act? In my view, the issue no more res-integra in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 141 of the Act and the law laid down in catena of judgments of the Apex Court including the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 141 of the Act provides that, when an offence is committed by the company, the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
