9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent filed a private complaint alleging that A3 is the Managing Director and A2 is one of the partners of A1 firm i.e., M/s.Vainqueur Corporate Services, situated at Hyderabad, which is dealing with data entry work. The accused used to take contracts of data entry and give sub-contracts to others to complete the assignment. Accordingly, the accused have given sub-contract of data entry work to the complainant in the month of August, 2010 by receiving a caution deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheques, which were credited into their account No.304011014832 at ING Vysya Bank on 30.08.2010. Therefore, they assigned the data entry work to the complainant from the month of September, 2010 to December, 2010. The complainant has completed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equest, the complainant presented the cheques in the month of July, 2011, but they were returned unpaid on 14.07.2011 and 20.07.2011 respectively, for insufficient funds. Thereupon, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 01.08.2011. Though the accused received the same, they did not pay the amount. Hence, he filed a private complaint against the petitioner and two others for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act and under Section 420 IPC. 3. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that though the petitioner, who is one of the Directors of the company, is not taking part in the day-to-day administration of the company and in the absence of any allegations in the complaint with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the offence under Section 138 of the Act. But, in case of company, Section 141 of the Act will apply. Section 141 of the Act reads as follows: Section 141. Offences by Companies.--(1) If the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a Company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the 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: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither a Director of the accused Company nor in charge of or involved in the day to day affairs of the Company at the time of commission of the alleged offence. There is not even a whisper or shred of evidence on record to show that there is any act committed by the appellant from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the appellant could be vicariously held liable for the offence with which she is charged. In the later judgment in Ashoke Mal Bafna v. Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Company Limited 2017(2) ALD (Crl.) 294 (SC), the Apex Court followed the principle in Pooja Ravinder's case, referred supra. 18. Therefore, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the above judgments, I am of the considered vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
