TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1881. 2. Briefly stated, Complainant, Rajasthan State Government Undertaking is registered under The Companies Act, 1956 (as amended Act of 2013) and is represented herein by its General Manager Shri Sanjeev Sharma, who is duly authorized and competent to represent the Complainant. 3. Accused No. 1 M/s Luxury Trains Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of arranging/booking luxury trains for its clients. Accused no. 2/Sajjive Trehan & Accused No. 3/Rohen Trehan are the Directors and Accused no. 4/Romi Trehan was the Chief Executive Officer of Accused No. 1, who are responsible for the management and control of the day-to-day affairs of the Accused Company. 4. Complainant operates two luxury trains, "Palace on Wheels" and "Royal Rajasthan on Wheels" on different routes and gives an opportunity to experience the charm of the most exotic destinations of Rajasthan and partly in Uttar Pradesh like Agra and Varanasi, in most refined lodging and cuisine at budgeted prices. The Accused Company M/s Luxury Trains Pvt. Ltd. approached the Complainant RTDC for booking of cabins/travelling tickets, etc., for its clients on the train. Accordingly, the Complainant engaged the services of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der is challenged on the ground that the Ld. ASJ failed to appreciate the material placed on record in the Complaint for invoking Section 141 N.I. Act. Ld. ASJ erred in discharging as the Respondent who did not produce any material to substantiate his contention, especially after issuance of Summons. It is asserted that the Discharge of the Respondent was unwarranted, and the Order should be set aside on the ground that the learned ASJ has erred in not appreciating and appraising the material evidence placed on record and the necessary averments made in the Complaint for invoking Section 141 N.I. Act for prosecuting the Respondent for committing an Offence under Section 138 NI Act. 14. It is a trite law that once the Accused persons were summoned, the Complaint must proceed against the Directors/Accused persons unless he furnishes some sterling unconvertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his contentions. The Respondent has miserably failed to establish any defence in his favour. Further, the law in Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anu Mehta, (2015) 1 SCC 103, has been ignored on the requirement of producing sterling material once the Summons has been issued. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. M.M. However, wrong track once taken can lead to further damage as happened in the present case, when learned ASJ erroneously entertained the Revision Petitions against the dismissal Order under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and even went to the extent of discharging the Respondent No. 2. 22. Now, since the learned ASJ has discharged the Respondent No. 2, who had been summoned vide Order dated 26.11.2014 for Offences under Section 138/141 N.I. Act, the present Revision Petitions may be considered on merit to ascertain if there was any ground for discharge of the Respondent No. 2. 23. Unfortunately, for the Complainant, the Respondent No. 2/Rohen Trehan upon his discharge in the Complaint Cases, left shores of the Country and his father Sh. Sajjive Trehan, the only other Director, was also declared a Proclaimed Offender. 24. In any case, the present Petitions need to be considered on the merits as to whether Respondent No.2 has been rightly discharged in the Complaint under Section 138/141 NI Act during the trial. The Complainant had asserted in his Complaint under Section 138 NI Act that the Accused M/s Luxury Trains Pvt. Ltd. had two Directors, namely, Sajjive Trehan and Rohen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rated and clarified that essentially in a case under Section 141, there ought to be a specific averment in the pleadings of the Complainant that at the time the Offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. It was held that a Director would not be liable simply because they are holding that position. It needs to be shown that the Director being made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of committing the offence. Further, that the persons holding the office of "Managing Director" or "Joint Managing Director", by virtue of the very nature of their role, renders them in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, and liable under Section 141. 31. In Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd (supra) the Apex Court has held that, "ordinary basic averment qua a director in the complaint would be sufficient to send him to trial and it could be argued that his further role could be brought out during trial. 32. The Complainant aside from asserting that being one of the two Director of the Company, was involved in the affairs of th....