Back
2011 (8) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.
Mrs. Anita Malhotra — Appellant(s)
versus
Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 2033 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 85 of 2011
Decided on : 8-11-2011
(b) Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 159, 163 and 610(3) – Annual return filed by a company showing inter alia details of existing Directors is a public document. (Para 11)
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 74(2) – Annual return of a company being a public document, its certified copy is admissible as evidence. (Para 11)
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Consideration of then defence of the accused or making a roving enquiry on merits of then case is not proper at this stage – However, if a reliable document is placed on record by the accused which if it is considered the accusation against the accused cannot stand, then it is incumbent on the High Court to look into those document/documents even at the initial stage and grant relief. (Para 13)
(2008) 8 SCC 1; (2011) 3 SCC 351 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case relates to vicarious liability under the NI Act,
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1238 of 2007 wherein the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for quashing of Criminal Complaint being No. 993/1 of 2005 filed against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi.
3) Brief facts:
(a) The appellant, who was a non-executive Director on the Board of M/s Lapareil Exports (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), resigned from the Directorship w.e.f. 31.08.1998. On 20.11.1998, recording the resignation of the appellant, the Company filed statutory Form 32 with the Registrar of Companies. A notice dated 10.12.2004 was issued to the appellant regarding dishonour of alleged cheques under Section 138 of the Act by the respondents. The appellant, vide letter dated 15.12.2004, replied to the said notice informing the respondents that she had resigned from the Directorship of the Company long back in 1998. By letter dated 17.12.2004, the respondents sought for certain information/documents from the appellant relating to the Company. On 18.12.2004, the appellant replied to the aforesaid letter reiterating that after her resignation she had nothing to do with the Company and as such she was not in a position to give the information sought for.
(b) The Respondents filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act being Complaint No. 993/1 of 2005 in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi against the Company arraying the appellant herein as accused No.3. The appellant herein also filed a petition being Criminal Misc. (Main) Petition No. 1238 of 2007 before the High Court of Delhi for quashing of the complaint pending in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 16.12.2009, dismissed her petition.
(c) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
4) Heard Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1.
5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant has made out a case for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the respondents under Section 138 of the Act.
6) In the complaint filed by the respondents before the ACMM, New Delhi, the appellant herein was shown as A3. Apparel Export Promotion Council-Complainant No.1 therein is a Company duly registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and has been sponsored by the Government of India through Ministry of Textiles and has been looking after all the matters relating to export of readymade garments from India to various parts of the world and also administer Garments Export Policy (GEP) issued by the Government of India from time to time. Complainant No.2 is the Joint Director and is otherwise a Principal Officer in the Apparel Export Promotion Council. Accused No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and in the complaint it was stated that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are its Directors. Insofar as the role of A2 and A3 are concerned, it was stated in the complaint that they are the Directors of the Company and are responsible for the conduct of the business and also responsible for day to day affairs of the Company. It was further stated that all the accused persons, who were in charge of and were responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business at the time the offence was committed shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. It is further seen from the complaint that on 01.06.2004, the Company had issued certain cheques in favour of the complainant for the purpose of allocation of quota and revalidation and utilization thereof. All the cheques mentioned in para 5 of the complaint were sent for encashment but the same were
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
