RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BHILWARA Vs. DILKHUSH CHAPLOT, DIRECTOR OF M/S SAMURAI SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application for grant of leave to appeal preferred under Section 378(iii) Cr.P.C., the appellant complainant craves leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 04.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2014 whereby, the appellate court rejected the appeal of the applicant complainant filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) Cases, No. 1, Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case No. 53/2011 exonerating the respondent from the charge under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel Shri Ojha and have gone through the impugned judgments as well as the record.

(3.) It is relevant to mention here that the complainant RFC filed the complaint against the company M/s. Samurai Synthetics Private Limited through its authorised signatory Ratan Lal Jain and the respondent Dilkhush Chaplot being its Director. During the pendency of the proceedings, it was expressed on behalf of the complainant before the trial court that it did not desire to continue the proceedings against the respondent company upon which, the trial court passed the order dated 26.07.2013 and dropped the proceedings against the company-accused respondent No. 1. Admittedly, the complaint was filed in relation to the alleged liability of the company towards the respondent RFC. As the complainant, consciously chose to drop the proceedings against the company, the Director individually could not be prosecuted as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. M/s. Godfathers Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., (2012)5 SCC 661 . That apart, law is also well settled by a catena of Supreme Court decisions that in cases where a complaint is filed against the Directors of the company, the complainant must come out with specific allegations to prove the responsibility of the arraigned Director for the day to day affairs of the company and more particularly for the infringement alleged. In absence of specific allegations, a Director cannot be portrayed as an accused on the concept of vicarious liability. On going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, it is further clear that the trial court also took note of the fact that the complainant RFC had advanced three loans to the company. The complainant's witness feigned ignorance to the question put to him so as to link the cheques in question with the specified loan transaction. The status of the defaulted loan account was also not made clear by the complainant's witness.