5. As indicated above, the private complaint itself filed for violation of the orders of the Company Law Board passed on 01.12.1998. The order has been passed pursuant to the default committed by the Company in repaying the amount to various depositors totalling more than Rs.20 crores at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the Company Law Board has passed an order directing the Company and its Directors to repay to the depositors by stipulating time limits and mode of payments to various depositors. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order of the Company Law Board make it clear that in the event of failure to pay the deposit back to the depositors, the Company and its Directors are liable to be prosecuted for violation as per law i.e., under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Though it is emphasized that the present petitioner was inducted as a Director only on 29.01.2000 much after the order passed by the Company Law Board, it is to be noted that once the person is inducted as a Director, he not only takes the responsibility of the company, but also has the responsibility to honour the orders already staring at the company. When there is a direction to the company to refund all the deposits received by the company, the responsibility is equally on all the Directors to see that the orders of the Company Law Board is properly complied. Therefore, one cannot take advantage of mere resignation from the Directorship at the relevant point of time to contend that he was not responsible to the affairs of the Company. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. Whether or not the petitioner was incharge and responsible to the conduct of the business of the company or whether or not he has purposely resigned to avoid the directions of the Company Law Board is a matter of evidence. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings. It is also relevant to note that similar stand has been taken by some of the co-accused wherein they pleaded discharge, which was dismissed by the trial Court and the revision filed against the said order in Crl.R.C.No.533 of 2011 has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2017 holding that there are prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioners who are arrayed as Accused 2, 4 and 5 in the private complaint.
