The liability of a corporate director for criminal activities persists if actions occurred during their tenure, despite subsequent resignation.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the 7^th accused in C.C No. 3743 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur and he is challenging the order dated 21.08.2020 in Crl.M.P. No. 3740 of 2020, whereby the trial court dismissed his application seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

2. The accused persons, 9 in number, were charge-sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannuthy Police Station for the offence under Section 420 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 r/w 17 of the Money Lenders Act and r/w 9 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act , 2012.

3. As per the prosecution case, the revision petitioner is one among the 8 Directors of the Golden Valley Chits (India) Ltd., a registered financial company, and the company obtained 128 signed blank cheques as security from various subscribers of the chitty conducted by the company without obtaining the licence required under the Kerala Money Lenders Act .

4. Heard Sri. Muhammed Hussain K.M., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

5. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that he has resigned from the company on 28.09.2013 and therefore, he is not liable for the alleged criminal activities committed by the company after his resignation.

6. In the impugned order, the trial court recorded a finding that the alleged offences were committed during the period from 06.08.2013 to 07.06.2014 and therefore, the revision petitioner is liable for the criminal activities of the company committed prior to 28.09.2013. It is well settled that for the purpose of framing charge, the question to be considered is whether a prima facie case is made out or not and after a proper evaluation of the available material, the trial court rightly found that there is a prima facie case against the revision petitioner.

7. It is also pertinent to note that there is a specific allegation against the company that the company conducted the chitty and collected signed blank cheques as security from various subscribers without obtaining the necessary licence and in that circumstance, it cannot be held that the charge against the petitioner who was one among the Directors of the company till 28.9.2013, is groundless.

8. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in revision.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

sd/-