The Petitioner was not the Director of the Company on the date when the offence was allegedly committed, he cannot be prosecuted by taking aid of Section 141 of the N.I.Act

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
SUBJECT :  NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
 Date of decision: 8th January, 2013
CRL. M.C. 1050/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE               ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.   ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
  Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.
CRL. M.C. 3071/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE               ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.   ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
  Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with
Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.
CRL. M.C. 3072/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE               ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.   ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
  Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.  CRL. M.C. 3073/2012
AMUL URHWARESHE               ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain Adv. with Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.   ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
  Mr. Ashok Anand Adv. with Ms. Priya Pathania, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By virtue of these four Petitions, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the four
Complaints titled ‘M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd.
(IREDA) v. M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. Etc.’ qua him on the ground that
the dishonoured cheques were dated 31.03.2005; and the Petitioner resigned
from the Directorship of M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. on 31.08.2000 and
information in this regard was sent to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on
10.09.2000, thus the Petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the
N.I.Act).
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the order dated
24.01.2011 passed by A.K.Pathak, J. in Criminal M.C. No.1366/2010 and
dated 11.04.2012 passed by Pratibha Rani, J. in Criminal M.C.
No.1926.2011 where in similar circumstances the complaint against the
Petitioner was quashed.
3. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposes  the Petition on the
ground that a perusal of Form No.32, certified copy of which has been
placed on record shows that its effective date was  only 06.04.2004.  He
urges that the Petitioner’s liability arose much before 06.04.2004 and mere
recording in Column No.6 of Form No.32 that the Petitioner resigned as Director w.e.f. 31.08.2000 would not be sufficient  to absolve him of his
liability under the N.I.Act.  In support of this contention, the learned counsel
for Respondent No.2 places reliance on Atul Kohli & Anr. v. State of Punjab
& Anr. (2005) 127 Comp. Cas. 237 (P&H).
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the certified copy
of Form No.32 and also the receipt through which the information regarding
resignation was communicated to the ROC.  The demand draft for `1,000/-
for lodging an information regarding date of change in appointment was
prepared on 03.09.2000 and the information was lodged on 10.09.2000.
Therefore, the information regarding Petitioner’s resignation would be
effective from 10.09.2000.  It cannot be said that  this information was
manipulated or was pre-dated as the same was documented.  Atul Kohli
relied upon by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, therefore, does not
apply to the facts of the present case.
5. Since the Petitioner was not the Director of the Company on the date
when the offence was allegedly committed, he cannot be prosecuted by
taking aid of Section 141 of the N.I.Act.  A reference in this connection may
be made to a judgment of this Court in M.L. Gupta v. DCM Financial
Services Limited 167 (2010) DLT 428. In similar circumstances, the
complaints were quashed by the Delhi High Court in  Criminal MC
Nos.1317/2009, 1318/2009, 1319/2009, 1320/2009, 1321/2009 &
1322/2009.
6. I find no reason to take a different view. Thus, the Petitions preferred by
the Petitioner are allowed and Criminal Complaint Case Nos.2106/1 of
2003, 895/12 of 2005, 901/12 of 2004 and 897/12 of  2004 and the
proceedings arising there from as against the Petitioner are quashed.
7. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.  
          Sd/-
(G.P. MITTAL)
               JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2013