KAMALDEEP SINGH SOKHI Vs. VYSYA BANK LEASING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. None appears on behalf of Respondent No.1, though they are served.

(2.) BY this application, the applicant is challenging an order of issuance of process passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court at Girgaum, Mumbai on a complaint which was lodged by Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) THOUGH the Respondent No.1-company is served, none appears on behalf of them. The fact that the applicant had resigned as a Director of the company has not been controverted. Form No.32, which is annexed at Exhibit-E to the application, discloses that the applicant had resigned from Board as Director and, the intimation was given to the Registrar of Companies on 30th May 1997. A letter was also returned to the applicant informing him that a Resolution was passed by the Board accepting his resignation and he was relieved form his duties with effect from 30/05/1997. In view of this documentary evidence, which has not been controverted by Respondent No.1, though they are served and, in view of the judgment of the apex Court that in such case unless there is a specific averment in the application that such a Director was in-charge and in control of day-to-day affairs of the company, he is not liable to be prosecuted. In view of this settled position of law, the present application will have to be allowed and the process issued against the present applicant is liable to be quashed. In the result, the application is allowed in the above terms and the process issued against the applicant is quashed.