9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP For the Petitioner : Mr. N. S. Sivakumar For the Respondent : Mr. T. Muruganantham ORDER This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash all the further proceedings in C.C.No.794 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur, Chennai. 2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments. As per the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner Pushpa Kumar is arrayed as second Respondent in the complaint in C.C.No.794 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur, Chennai. As per the complaint, the Respondent/Complainant had received cheques of different amounts on the same day totalling an amount of Rs.1,76,43,951/- in favour of the Respondent/Complainant. When the said cheuqes were presented for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement fund insufficient . It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no specific averment against the second Accused/Petitioner herein. The operations of the first Accused Company commenced in the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur, Chennai. 3.In support of the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following rulings: 3.1.In the case of K.Janakimanoharan and another -vs- M/s.Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited, Hyderabad and another reported in 2000 SCC OnLine AP 402, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has observed as follows: 14. It is pertinent to notice that so far as these Petitioners- Directors are concerned, there is not even a whisper, nor anything to show that there is any act as such committed by them from which any inference can be drawn by which they could also be held vicariously liable. 15. It is true that the entire evidence, upon which the complainant may rely to establish its case, need not be disclosed in the complaint itself. But the law requires that there must be clear, unambiguous and specific allegations against the Directors of a company who are arrayed as Accused and such allegations should reveal that they were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the material time when the offence was committed by the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. All other facts are required to be established by the complainant/prosecution. The Accused can always rely upon the presumption of innocence in his favour. 3.3.In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K.Wahi -vs- Shekhar Singh and others reported in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 481, it has observed as follows: A.Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138 and 141 Dishonour of cheque Offence by company Vicarious liability of the Director/employee of the company Conditions required for establishing liability Held, under S. 141, if any offence is committed by a company, then every person who is a Director/employee is not liable Liability lies only on such person(s) who at the time of commission of offence were in charge and were responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company as well as the company Merely being a Director of the company would not make such person liable. B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138 and 141 Dishonour of cheque Offence by company Vicarious liability of the Director/employee of the company Requirements for launching prosecution Requisite averments in com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Instruments Act, 1881 Section 141 Offences by companies Vicarious liability under Section 141 How to be construed and fastened on a person When can Director of a Company be made liable for offences committed by Company under Section 141 Principles summarised. 10.In other words, the law laid down by this Court is that for making a Director of a Company liable for the offences committed by the Company under Section 141 of the Act, there must be specific averments against the Director showing as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. 4.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be considered by exercising discretion under Section 482 in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the High Courts by exercising discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant further submitted that the complaint is filed against one Pushpa Kumar. He claims to be the Chief Executive Officer in both the Companies and he sought loan from the Respondent/Complainant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
