Criminal application filed by a director accused of complicity in a cheque-related offence committed by his company. Court held mere directorship insufficient for liability under section 141 without allegation of complicity.
Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) to the extent of applicant accused No.5 only.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5339 OF 2004
Mr. Shankar Bose ..Applicant.
V/s.
State Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.
-----
Smt. N.S. Nappinai for the Applicant.
Shri A.S. Gadkari, APP for Respondent No.1.
-----
CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 22, 2004
PC :-
1. Heard counsel for the parties. None appears
for Respondent No.2 though served. Shri Gadkari,
waives notice for respondent No.1-State.
2. The short question involved in the present
petition is; whether any case is made out against the
present applicant accused No.5 to indicate his
complicity in the commission of the offence committed
by the Company ?. The only allegation that can be
discerned, even on fair reading of the complaint, is
that the said applicant was director of the accused
company and was responsible for the day to- day
management of the accused company. It is not in
2
dispute that the applicant is not the signatory to the
cheque in question. However, there is no allegation
against the applicant to indicate his complicity in
relation to the offence committed by the accused
company within the meaning of section 141 of the Act.
Recently I had occasion to consider the question as is
required to be considered in the present application,
in the case of Madanlal Taparia & Anr. vs. The Bank
of Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. in criminal writ petition
No. 2241/2004 decided on 14th December, 2004. It is
well settled that merely because the person is
director of the accused company, does not make him
liable for the offence committed by the Company.
Something more has to be alleged and established,
which is clearly lacking in the present complaint. In
other words, no material facts are alleged in the
complaint as filed so as to make the applicant liable
within the meaning of section 141 of the Act.
3. Accordingly, this application succeeds and the
same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) to the
extent of applicant- accused No.5 only.
4. Ordered accordingly.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any case is made out against the applicant accused No.5 to indicate his complicity in the offence committed by the Company?
Whether merely being a director of the accused company makes a person liable for the offence committed by the Company under section 141?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madanlal Taparia & Anr. vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.Explained¶2
Madanlal Taparia & Anr. vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. in criminal writ petition No. 2241/2004 decided on 14th December, 2004
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar Bose
State Maharashtra
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court