Case Law Details
Jatinder Pal Singh Vs Statcon Power Controls Ltd. (Allahabad High Court)
High Court held that in absence of specific allegations about the applicant he cannot be prosecuted for any offence under section 138 N.I. Act (Cheque Bounce Case).
Contentions of the Appellant
In this case there was no specific averment in the complaint against the applicant. Applicant was only a nominee Director appointed on 24.4.2012 and the applicant resigned from the Board of Directors on 19.1.2014. The applicant is not involved in day to day affairs of the company, so he cannot be held reliable for dishonour of any cheque issued by other Managing Directors. The applicant has not signed the dishonoured cheques on behalf of company nor is he authorized signatory of the company. The O.P. No. 1 has merely implicated the applicant without assigning any specific role to the applicant in the execution of dishonour of the cheques with intention of harassing the applicant. The O.P. No. 1 has not made any specific averment against the applicant as to the part played by him in the whole transaction. Merely being a Director in a company it is not sufficient to make the applicant liable under section 141 of the N.I. Act. For imputing liability on the applicant the O.P. No. 1 ought to have brought incontrovertible material on record to show that the applicant is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of affairs of the company. In the absence of such material and in the light of general averments the applicant cannot be prosecuted.
Contention of the Respondents i.e. Other Parties
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
