IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal liability cannot be fastened in the director after he has ceased to be the company’s director.

Aruna Suresh, J.—By way of this petition, petitioner Sh. Ranjit Choudhary seeks quashing of complaint case No. 94/1/2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled “Sanjeev Thareja v. Bombay Bazaar” and proceedings conducted therein which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ms. Navita Kumari.

2. Epigrammatically, on 10.12.2002 a cheque bearing No.168979 was issued by M/s. Bombay Bazaar, respondent No. 2 company (drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank for a sum of Rs. 35,531in favour of the complainant, respondent No.1 Sanjeev Thareja and Sons (HUF) in lieu of the commission payable to the complainant in terms of an agreement inter se them of establishing distribution centre at Lajpat Nagar. Complainant presented the abovesaid cheque to its banker who informed the complainant that the cheque stood dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient”. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.2.2003 to the respondent No. 2 company as well as the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 9 who were the directors of the respondent No. 2 company calling upon them to pay the amount of the bounced cheque. The accused persons sent a reply to the said legal notice. Consequently complainant filed a complaint somewhere in May 2003. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused persons including the petitioner. On 6.3.2007 learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and other accused persons. Hence, the present petition.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the cheque in question was signed and issued by respondent No. 4 Vijay Tata who as the director/CEO of the respondent No. 2 Company M/s. Bombay Bazaar. Also the petitioner had sent a reply on 25.2.2003 to the Advocate of respondent No.1 Company against the legal notice of demand of payment dated 11.2.2003 in which it was stated that petitioner had resigned from the company w.e.f. 14.9.2002 and a copy of Form-32 was also attached thereto. It is further submitted that petitioner has not been served with the notice of the case and it is only recently that petitioner came to know of the non-bailable warrants issued against him by the trial Court.

4. It is further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the date on which the cheque was issued that is 10.12.2002; the petitioner had already resigned on 14.9.2002. Even during his tenure as a director, he was not involved in the day-to-day functioning of the company.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 controverted the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner by challenging the relevancy and admissibility of Form-32 produced by the petitioner, Form-32 being prepared by the company was not a public document. In support of his contentions respondent has relied on the Budhamal Bhansali @ B. Bhansali v. The State of West Bengal1.

6. Reply dated 25.2.2003 sent to the complainant by the petitioner mentions that there was shuffling in the constitution of directors of the company and respondent No. 4 took over the charge of the company whereas petitioner had resigned with effect from 14.9.2002. He also stated in the reply letter that the cheque No. 168979 dated 10.12.2002 was issued by respondent No. 4 Vijay Tata, Director of Bombay Bazaar after the resignation of the petitioner. Form No. 32 filed with the ROC Mumbai gave the status of the petitioner in the respondent No. 2 company that he had resigned on 14.9.2002.

7. It is clear that petitioner had resigned long before the cheque was issued and the production of Form-32 filed with the Registrar of the Companies by the petitioner to establish his resignation is also sufficient for this petition to succeed. The respondent has not given any evidence on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the functioning and conduct of the respondent No. 2 company any time either after the resignation on 14.9.2002 or till after the cheque was issued.

8. It is per