TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions 406, 420 and 114 of IPC. The FIR was registered on 10.12.2011 against three accused persons, of which the present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3. 2. In the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant (respondent No.2), who was doing business of steel, had come in contact with accused No.1, who was doing business in the name of "Shivami Enterprise India Ltd." It is alleged that the complainant previously three years back had dealt with Shivami Enterprise and its partner - Mr.Yogeshbhai Suvariya and present petitioner. 2.1 It is further alleged that o 12.11.2011, Mr.Yogeshbhai Suvariya gave a huge order for purchase of TMT steel and assured that gradually, payment by cheque for the goods would be sent. On such assurance, good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2010 and therefore, the petitioner had nothing to do with the accused company. 4.1 He also drew attention of this Court to communication dated 19.04.2010 addressed to the Commercial Tax Officer, Rajkot, wherein it is informed, on the strength of his resignation, that the VAT /TIN numbers assigned to the company, from which the petitioner has resigned and his name has been deleted from the list of Directors. 4.2 He also drew attention of this Court to the deed of dissolution which appears to have been signed by the petitioner on one side and one Mr.Yogesh Suvariya which was executed in the month of April 2009, which is indicative of the fact that the petitioner is now no more concerned with administration and functioning of Shivami ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceeded for for them, charge sheet is filed. Learned APP also fairly drew attention of this Court that in the charge sheet, in column No.4, the name of the present petitioner is appearing as witness No.5 in this very offence. 7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the case papers, it is evident even from perusal of the FIR that the complainant himself was aware about legal status of the petitioner that the petitioner is no more attached to the company against which the FIR is registered. A perusal of the FIR would also indicate that all the allegations in FIR, insofar as representing or inducing the complainant are concerned, are directed against other accused persons, where no role of the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is attributed and imputed to the appellants. It is difficult to accept it as the correct principle of law. As demonstrated hereinafter, this proposition would run contrary to the principle of vicarious liability detailing the circumstances under which a direction of a company can be held liable. (iii) Circumstances when Director/Person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person: 42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. It woul....