C P SRINIVAS RAO Vs. S S NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioner-accused No. 5 that he was not a Director of the A1 - Company on the date of issue of cheque and transaction as he had tendered his resignation long back on 28-2-1997 and, that in the complaint, there are no allegations against him except that he is a Director of the accused No. 1 (Company) and the cheque has been issued with his knowledge and consent and hence all the accused are liable to be proceeded, and as such, he cannot be prosecuted and consequently, the proceedings require to be quashed. After notice to the respondent complainant, heard both sides and perused the records.

(2.) IT was vehemently argued for the petitioner that unless there is specific allegation in the complaint that he was a Director, who was in charge of and responsible to the Company (A1) for the conduct of the business of the Company, he cannot be prosecuted, more so, when he was not even a director of the accused No. 1- Company during the relevant period of transaction and issue of cheque. On the other hand, it was submitted for the respondent complainant that whether or not the petitioner-accused no. 5 was a Director and responsible in the transaction is purely a matter of evidence, which cannot be gone into/decided by this court at this stage in proceedings under section 482 of Cr. P. C. and consequently, the petition requires to be rejected.

(3.) IT is true, in the complaint, the allegations against the petitioner/a-5 are, he is a director of the accused No. 1 - Company and the cheque was issued with his knowledge and consent, and not that he was in charge of and responsible to the A1-Company for the conduct of the business of the first accused - Company. But, Section 141 (2)of the N. I. Act says that where any offence under that Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of any Director, such Director shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly. So, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Katta Sujatha (Smt.) v. Fertilizers and chemicals Travancore Limited, ILR 2003 kant 4856 relied on for the petitioner does not help him much.