Whether a Director who has resigned from such position and which fact stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization, is the sole short and common question that this Court must consider in these appeals arising 2|SLP
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/differences-between-parties-and-witnesses-in-a-civil-suit/
(Crl) 6905 & 7050 of 2022 out of the judgment and order dated 6 April, 2022 in CRLOP No.34923 of 2019; and 8 April, 2022 in CRLOP No.34248 of 2019.
Appeal Nos…..@
SLP(Crl)No.6905 and SLP(Crl)No.7050 of 2022, respectively, were arrayed as accused in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in relation to three cheques bearing nos.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/high-courts-analysis-on-interference-with-arbitral-awards/
Act, which states that every person who at the time of the offence was responsible for the affairs/conduct of the business of the company, shall be held liable and proceeded against under Section 138 of the N.I. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subjected to criminal process. We also notice this Court to have observed, in regards to the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC, in cases involving negotiable instruments that interference would not be called for, in the absence of “some 5|SLP (Crl) 6905 & 7050 of 2022 unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of process of Court.”
This principle as held in S.M.S Pharmaceuticals (supra) was followed in Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya and Anr.
Particularly, when the appellant(s) had no role in the issuance of the instrument, which is evident from Form 32 (Exh.P.59) issued much prior to the date on which the cheque was drawn and presented for realisation.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/promotion-policy-for-rank-of-avm-in-indian-air-force/
The appeal(s) are therefore allowed in the above terms.
Case Title: RAJESH VIREN SHAH Vs. REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITED (2024 INSC 111)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000888-000888 / 2024
