PRAKASH Vs. SARVESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) By this application, the applicant has challenged the order passed on 03.02.2014 by District Judge -5 and A.S.J., Nagpur, dismissing the revision application being Cri. Revi. No. 127/13, filed by the applicant against dismissal of applicant's application seeking quashing of process issued against him by the Special Court on 18.10.2012.

(3.) According to the applicant, he is neither Director nor a signatory to the cheque issued in this case and there have been no specific averments made in the complaint that the applicant was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company or was in -charge of the company at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, it is submitted that no essential ingredients of fastening vicarious liability upon the applicant have been established and, as such, process could not have been issued. Reliance has been placed on the decision in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal & anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330.