JUJJAVARAPU ACHYUTA RAMA RAO Vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very threshold of this case, it requires mention that on the prayer of the learned advocate for both parities, three (3) criminal revisional application being CRR No. 355 of 2019, CRR No. 356 of 2019 and CRR No. 373 of 2019 were heard together, having found some common element in each of the three items required to be addressed by this court. These three revisional applications were originated at the instance of the petitioner, erstwhile director of Super Agriseeds Private Limited, made as one of the accused in connection with three prosecutions, instituted by complainant/Axis Bank Limited, for the cheques involving different amount contained in each of the cheque, having been dishonoured by the Bank. These three revisional applications are all alike in sense that in each of the revisional application, petitioner had prayed for quashing of the pending proceeding before the court below, taking a specific plea that the petitioner was not a signatory to the cheque dishonoured, and further prior to the commission of the offence, the petitioner had already tendered his resignation and his resignation had been duly accepted by the Registrar of the Company.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter, for the petitioner covering three cases referred hereinabove submitted that petitioner was the erstwhile Director of the company, and the moment when the offence was committed, the petitioner was no longer the Director of the company so as to hold him to be vicariously liable for the company, as the petitioner had already submitted his resignation on 1st April, 2015, which was accepted by the Registrar of the company on 10.10.15. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that he was not a signatory to the cheque dishonoured in all the three cases. It was sought to be established that the dishonoured cheque was issued by one Mr. Ravi Srinivas Sunkarapalli, the Chairman, Director of the company, being a signatory of the accused company, and not by the petitioner himself. Adhering to a copy of the order, passed in CRR No. 3056 of 2018 with CRAN 209 of 2019, rendered by Co- ordinate Bench of this court on 5th March, 2019 learned advocate for petitioner submitted that on the self-same ground one of the Directors, who was also not signatory to the cheque in question, in connection with a proceeding pending before the learned court below pertaining to complaint case CS No. 73089 had been quashed, and candidly submitted further that relying upon such decision, as already rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this court, the pending proceedings in connection with a case being CS No.72320 of 2018 now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta, and CS 73089 of 2018 and CS 72551 of 2018 now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court Calcutta should be allowed to be quashed. Learned advocate for the complainant/opposite party Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, honestly submitted that he had the occasion to defend the complainant/O.P/Bank, in the case referred above and he had participated in the hearing process resulting in decision as already mentioned. Admittedly there left nothing to show that having felt aggrieved with the decision, delivered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in connection with CRR No.3056 OF 2018, complainant/O.P already had preferred appeal and the same is pending.

(3.) Before addressing the issue, mentioning of some salient facts may be of useful assistance in properly addressing the issue, required to be answered by this court. The criminal revisional application being CRR 355 of 2019 involved an amount of Rs.4,94,896/- having drawn on 15th June, 2018. The second criminal revisional application being CRR No. 356 of 2019 involved an amount of Rs.2,94,700/- having drawn on 15th June, 2018, while the third criminal revisional being CRR No. 373 of 2019 involved an amount of Rs.3,40,435/- having drawn on 15th June, 2018. Separate prosecution was started by the complainant/OP for different cheques having disbonoured after service of notice of demand. Admittedly the petitioner now proposing quashment is on bail. The significant fact, as revealed during course of hearing, is that the moment when the cheque was drawn by the drawer of the dishonoured cheque, the petitioner was no longer Director of the accused company, as the petitioner had already submitted his resignation on 1st April, 2015, which was duly accepted by the Registrar of the company on 10.10.15. Further petitioner was not the signatory to the dishonoured cheques. It would be profitable her to refer the relevant paragraph of a decision delivered by the Apex Court reported in (2013) 8 SCC 71 delivered in the case of Aparnaa. Shah vs. Sheth Developers Private Limited and Anr. which may be mentioned as herein:-