2000 (3) TMI 939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed. 3. The respondent No. 1-complainant is said to be company called NCC Finance Ltd. According to the averments in the complaint, the accused No. 1 approached the complainant for purchasing computer equipment on hire-purchase basis. The accused entered into a hire-purchase agreement for an amount of Rs. 8,07,921 with the complainant company on 4-9-1997. The amount was to be repaid in 18 instalments at the rate of Rs. 44,876 per month. The accused paid the first instalment and part of second instalment and thereafter committed defaults. The accused issued cheque No. 607682 dated 4-2-1998 for an amount of Rs. 44,885 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Industrial Finance Branch, Hyderabad towards payment of the said instalment. The cheque w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hand contends that the fact whether the petitioner has resigned from the board of directors and was not a Director at the relevant time is a question of fact which has to be decided during the trial. It is further argued that even the fact whether the petitioner was incharge of and was responsible to the company is also a question of fact which has to be enquired into during the trial and as such it is submitted that the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 6. It would appear that accused No. 1 is the company of which accused No. 2 is said to be the managing director. Accused No. 3, according to the complainant, is said to be the Executive Director and Secretary of the Company. Accused No. 4 is said to be another executive direc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section that certain director was incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company'. It is necessary to emphasize that section 141 where an offence under section 138 has been committed by a company, the complainant is required to give a serious thought and make enquiries and ascertain the fact as to whether a particular director was incharge of and responsible to the affairs and conduct of the business of the company. Routinely roping in all the Directors by merely repeating the words used in section 141 without ascertaining the facts is a serious matter which has to be deprecated. However, it is a question of fact which necessarily has to be decided during the trial. 9. In a petition under section 4....