9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t supported by documents like DIR-12 and notice of resignation, it is made clear that petitioners were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company and it s decisions, the defence that petitioner no. 3 was no longer the directors of the company at the time when the cheque was presented and dishonoured, had to be substantiated by the accused/petitioner and this could be done only at the stage of trial. Since this is a proceeding, under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and pending for last six years, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court at Calcutta is hereby requested to make expeditious disposal of the case and to dispose of the entire proceeding preferably within a period of six months from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply vide letter dated 22.12.2016 to the opposite party contending that he has already resigned before this incident from the said company namely, M/s. Ganapati Balaji spinning Mills Private Limited. On 14.1.2016, the present complaint case no. CS/0051867 of 2016 under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been filed by the opposite party against all the three petitioners even after receipt of aforesaid reply dated 22.12.2016 given by petitioner no.3 herein. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in the reply dated 22.12.2016 petitioner no. 3 sent documents to the opposite party in support of his resignation on 12.07.2012. from the company. 3. Learned advocate for the opposite party Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that while the case of the petitioner No.3 is that the he resigned from the said company on 6.7.2012, on the contrary, the case of the opposite party is that he resigned from the company only on 30.5.2016. The impugned three cheques are dated 20.08.2015, 22.08.2015 and 24.08.2015. 7. Accordingly the issue raised by petitioner no.3 herein is, whether petitioner no. 3 has got any responsibility for the conduct of business of the company in connection with the issuance of impugned cheque by the company in respect of which proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been initiated by the complainant/opposite party. 8. Needless to say that criminal prosecution is a serious matter, it affects the liberty of a pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signation, it is made clear that petitioners were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company and it s decisions, the defence that petitioner no. 3 was no longer the directors of the company at the time when the cheque was presented and dishonoured, had to be substantiated by the accused/petitioner and this could be done only at the stage of trial. 10. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 517, the Apex Court while dealing with the scope of power under section 482 of the code observed:- 13.It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
