https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127017 Vicarious criminal liability of directors under section 27 of the SEBI Act arises only where the complaint specifically pleads and prima facie shows that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence. Here, the complaint did not allege that the former directors held that role when the relevant default occurred, and certified Form No. 32 records showed their resignation before the extended deadline. The court rejected the argument that this should await trial, because the resignation documents were official records and were not controverted. A continuing-offence theory was also unavailable because it was not pleaded. The complaint and summoning order were therefore liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2014 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127017 Vicarious criminal liability of directors under section 27 of the SEBI Act arises only where the complaint specifically pleads and prima facie shows that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence. Here, the complaint did not allege that the former directors held that role when the relevant default occurred, and certified Form No. 32 records showed their resignation before the extended deadline. The court rejected the argument that this should await trial, because the resignation documents were official records and were not controverted. A continuing-offence theory was also unavailable because it was not pleaded. The complaint and summoning order were therefore liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127017