Appellate courts must defer to trial courts for factual determinations; defenses should be fully adjudicated at trial, not prematurely dismissed.

ORDER

Heard learned senior counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. By the impugned order(s), the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings as against accused nos. 2 and 4 viz. Pankaj Saraf and Pradeep Saraf, arrayed as respondent nos. 2 and 3 before this Court, on the ground that they were not the Directors of the Company in default, on the date when the cheques were issued for encashment. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were, admittedly, Directors of the Company on the date of issue of cheques and further that they had signed the cheques as authorised signatories of the Company. Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.09.27 16:15:29 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 does not dispute this fact. Further learned senior counsel for respondents has sought to argue other points which have not at all been considered by the High Court and on which grounds he wants to submit that the present appeals be dismissed and discharge by the High Court may be maintained. 6. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents. Whatever be the status and whatever be the defences available to respondent nos. 2 and 3 can very well be tried and tested and adjudicated upon by the Trial Court, after parties lead their evidence. 7. We are also not inclined to consider the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the respondents for the reason that the pleas for discharge and quashing of the proceedings were taken eight years after the proceedings commenced and substantial evidence had been led before the Trial Court. 8. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the Trial Court may proceed with the matter(s) against all the accused including respondent nos. 2 and 3 and decide the pending trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. 9. It goes without saying that both the parties shall extend all cooperation in the trial. We further make it clear that all the defences available to the accused and raised would be considered by the Trial Court while deciding the case(s). 10. The impugned order(s) is set aside and the appeals are allowed in above terms. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………………………………………. .J. [VIKRAM NATH] ……………………………………………. .J. [ AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 26, 2023. ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9236- 9246/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-04-2023 in CRR No. 3955/2022, CRR No. 3965/2022, in CRR No. 3956/2022, in CRR No. 3957/2022, in CRR No. 3958/2022, in CRR No. 3960/2022, in CRR No. 3961/2022, in CRR No. 3962/2022, in CRR No. 3963/2022, in CRR No. 3964/2022, in CRR No. 2639/2022 passed by the High Court at Calcutta) YUSEN LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.148011/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.150322/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ) Date : 26-09-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Appellant(s) Mr. Basant R., Sr. Adv. Mr. Tejas Karia, Adv. Mrs. Shruti Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Deep, Adv. Mr. Nishant Doshi, Adv. Mr. Nitin Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahay, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V.N Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Dhawan, AOR Mr. Supantha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vinod Gupta, A