IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
Vijayraj Surana - Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank, Flagship Corporate Branch, Chennai, Represented by its Assistant General Manager, B. Rajasekar & Others - Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 2226 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No. 1447 of 2019
Decided On : 17-06-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - [Section 138, Section 141]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3645 of 2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arguing that as Accused No.5, they were not a director of the company at the time of the alleged offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's argument, stating that the issue of the petitioner's resignation and liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be considered before the trial court and not by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: Validity of the complaint against the petitioner as Accused No.5 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Ratio Decidendi: The issue of the petitioner's resignation and liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be considered before the trial court and not by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed as having no merits, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to call for the records relating to C.C.No.3645 of 2015 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate - Fast Track Court II, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.)
This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.3645 of 2015 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.5 in the complaint preferred by the first Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the averments in the complaint against the Petitioner which states that the first Accused is a Company registered under the Company-s Act, 1956, and engaged in the Generation, Production and sale of Electricity and the other Accused 2 to 5 are Managing Director and Directors of the Company. The Accused in the usual course of their business activities, have availed various financial/credit facilities from the Complainant bank including opening of Irrevocable Letters of Credit Facility on 26.12.2014, for purchase of Indonesian Coal (Non-Coking coal), 6,500 MTS @ 7500 PMT with 4.5% VAT, from M/s.Natural Coal Private Limited. The Complainant has acceded to the request of the accused for opening Inland Letter of Credit in favour of the accused for purchase of coal from the said M/s.National Coal Private Limited for a sum of Rs.5,03,21,250/- (Rupees Five Crore Three Laksh Twenty one thousands two hundred and fifty only). As per the Complaint, the date referred is 26.12.2014 regarding the allegation against First Accused Company. On the alleged date, the Petitioner herein, who was arrayed as A-5 in the complaint in C.C.No.3645 of 2015, was not at all the Director of the Company. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the offences by Companies. If the first Respondent/Complainant had been vigilant and alert, he ought to have obtained the details regarding the Company from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, a Government of India undertaking, which uploads details of the change in the Board of Directors of the Company as recorded by the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, on the date of filing of this complaint by the first Respondent/Complainant, the Petitioner herein who was arrayed as Accused No.5, was not a Director of the first Accused Company, particularly, on the date of alleged offence mentioned in paragraph No.8 of the complaint, dated 28.12.2014, the Petitioner had already resigned in the year 2012. The alleged cheque was issued in the year 2015. Subsequent to the date of resignation of the Petitioner/Accused No.5, the Petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.5, has nothing to do with the alleged offences mentioned in the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the reported rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd., -vs- Neeta Bhalla and Another reported in (2007) 4 SCC 70 and in the case of National Small Industries Corp. Ltd., -vs- Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another reported in CDJ 2010 SC 153 for the proposition that before filing the complaint, the first Respondent/Complainant ought to have furnished the printed/downloaded copy from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs regarding the status of the Petitioner but no such document is filed as document along with the complaint. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another -vs- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Department of Home a
Directors can be absolved from criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act if they have resigned from the directorship before the issuance of a dishonored cheque and are not signatories t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a former director of a company cannot be held liable for a dishonoured cheque issued after their resignation from the directorship, and the im....
The court quashed proceedings against a former director for cheque dishonor, ruling that allegations did not establish an offense post-resignation, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of legal proc....
A person submitting false documents in court proceedings is deemed to have no right to be heard unless they purge the contempt.
A director who resigns before the cheque issuance cannot be held liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act, evidenced by credible documents demonstrating resignation.
The necessity of specific averments to fasten vicarious liability on a director under Section 141 of the N.I. Act, and the inability to quash the prosecution based on lack of specific averments in th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.