TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, on the ground that the petitioners herein were the nominee Directors and were in-charge of the affairs of the said company. 2. On recording the sworn statement of the respondent, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above offence and issued summons to the petitioners. The order of taking cognizance and the directions to issue summons to the petitioners were challenged before this Court in Crl. Petition Nos. 627/2010 and 628/2010 and by order dated 01.07.2014, both the petitions were dismissed. The petitioners carried the matters in the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9133-9134/2014 and by order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In support of this plea, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2007) 3 SCC 693 with reference to para 14, wherein it is held as under:- "14. Apart from the Company and the appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, the Managing Director and all other Directors were also made accused. The appellant did not issue any cheque. He, as noticed hereinbefore, had resigned from the directorship of the Company. It may be true that as to exactly on what date the said resignation was accepted by the Company is not known, but, even otherwise, there is no averment in the complaint petitions as to how and in what manner the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Five Cheques in respect of amount payable were issued by the accused No. 1. The above cheques are signed by the accused No. 5 who is the Deputy General Manager and authorized signatory of the accused No. 1. The accused Nos. 2 to 5 are in charge of and responsible to the accused No. 1 for management and conduct of the business of the accused No. 1." 7. Based on the above averments, the petitioners herein are sought to be prosecuted in their capacity as the Directors of accused No. 1-Company. Notwithstanding the contentions urged by the petitioners that at the time of alleged dishonour of the cheques, the petitioners had tendered resignation, yet, the question that arises for consideration is whether on account of being the nominee Director....