TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes criminal proceeding due to director's resignation before cheque issuance.</h1> <h3>Saroj Kumar Jhunjhunwala Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.</h3> The court quashed the criminal proceeding against the petitioner under sections 138/141 of the N.I. Act, as he had resigned from the directorship before ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the petitioner was liable u/s 138/141 of the N.I. Act despite resigning from the directorship before the issuance of the cheques.2. Whether the absence of an averment in the complaint regarding the petitioner's responsibility for the day-to-day business of the company affects the maintainability of the case.Summary:Issue 1: Liability u/s 138/141 of the N.I. Act Post-ResignationThe petitioner sought quashing of the proceeding in Case No. C/7143 of 2003 u/s 482 of the CrPC, arguing that he had resigned from the directorship of the accused company before the issuance of the cheques. The cheques in question were issued on 26/5/2003, while the petitioner resigned on 22/5/2003, as evidenced by Form No. 32 submitted to the Registrar of Companies. The court found the certified copy of Form No. 32 admissible and reliable, establishing that the petitioner was not a director at the relevant time. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the dishonourment of the cheques and quashed the proceedings against him, citing that further continuation would be an abuse of the process of the Court.Issue 2: Absence of Averment in the ComplaintThe petitioner also argued that the complaint lacked an averment that he was responsible for the day-to-day business of the company. However, since the court had already concluded that the petitioner was not a director at the relevant time, it deemed it unnecessary to address this argument. The point was treated as not decided by the court.Conclusion:The revisional application was allowed, and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was quashed. The petitioner was discharged immediately.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
