2016 (5) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kumar Garg, Adv. And Mr. R. C. Kaushik, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR And Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR ORDER Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The High Court dismissed the applications of the appellants filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the summoning order in Criminal Complaint No. 408/1 of 2012 on the ground t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the above provision that what is required is that the persons who are sought to be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence under Section 141 should be, at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. Only ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent No.1 was in-charge of or was responsible to the accused company for t....