TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that in the usual course of the complainant's business, the 1st accused availed bill discounting facility from the complainant for a sum of Rs. 22,50,000 as per bill discounting agreement dated 19-3-1993 against invoices dated 3-2-1997 and 4-2-1997. The accused towards the said loan, issued a cheque bearing No. 243249 dated 27-12-1997 for Rs. 22,50,000 drawn on Indian Bank, Alwarpet Branch, Chennai-18. The cheque was presented for payment by the complaintant on 27-12-1997 in State Bank of Travancore, Mount Road, Chennai-2, and the same was returned on 30-12-1997 with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The petitioner has issued notice to all the accused persons. Even after the receipt of the notice, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence." 5. The petitioner herein was a director of the company and from 20-3-1997 he ceased to be a director of the company. The cheque was issued later, i.e. on 27-12-1997 and there is no avermen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question we, however, find that except a bald statement that the respondents were directors of the manufactures, there is no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that they were in-charge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business." (p. 369) Though these two decisions are respectively under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the present case is one under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the principle is the same as far as the directors of the company are concerned. 6. There is no averment in the complaint filed by the respondent herein that the petitioner herein, who was the 4th accused, as director of the company was in charge of, and was responsible t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....radesh High Court held that there were allegations to the effect that the petitioners were assisting the Managing Director in running the business of the company and materials on record did not conclusively establish that the petitioners had ceased to be directors of the company by date of issuance of cheque, such questions of fact were decided in a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on that ground the petition was dismissed. In the instant case, the facts are different. First of all, there was no allegation to satisfy section 141. Secondly, the petitioner has proved through documentary evidence that he ceased to be a director of the company much earlier to the date of issuance of cheque. Therefore, the deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on should be decided only in the trial and the complaint cannot be quashed. However, there is no allegation in the complaint as contemplated under section 141 and also there is no evidence that the accused was responsible for the issuance of the cheque which was subsequently dishonoured and that the accused was a Director of the company on the date of the alleged offence. In such circumstances, when the facts of the present complaint are quite distinct and different from that of the facts in the case cited, the said decision is not applicable to the present case. 9. We have already seen the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sham Sunder's case (supra) and Brij Lal Mittal's case (supra). Wherein their Lorships have held that except a bald ....