ANIL MORE Vs. PRADEEPKUMAR BADUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order passed in Cr. Revision No. 883/2003 shall also govern the disposal of Cr. Revision Nos. 884/2003 and 885/2003 above because the applicant in all the three revisions is common, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are common and formal parties and the point involved in all the three revisions are also common.

(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9-9-2003 passed by the learned First Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Cr. Case No. 126/2003 thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner that he was not a Director of Dunkan Express transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. respondent No. 3. In support of his contention, the petitioner had filed a photo-state copy of a document, original of which was issued by the Company Registrar, Maharashtra in which at column No. 5, it is mentioned that the resignation of the petitioner from the post of Directorship was accepted by the Company in the 24th Annual General Meeting held on 29th October, 1994. The same document has been filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court. He had also filed the certified copy of the document issued by the Company Registrar, Maharashtra to this effect. According to him, on the date of transaction between the complainant and other accused persons, he was not at all concerned with the company.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of S. B. Shankar v. Amman Steel Corporation (2000 Cri. LJ 838 ). In this judgment, the contention of the petitioner/accused was accepted by the Madras High Court on the strength of Form No. 32 issued by the Company Registrar disclosing the fact that the petitioner was not the Director who was in-charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company during the course of relevant period and as such, the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.