ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) OUT of the aforesaid five criminal revisional applications, while Rajiv Kishanchand Chhabra is the petitioner in CRR No. 3042 of 2014 and CRR No. 3044 of 2014, Pravin Kumar is the petitioner, in respect of the remaining criminal revisions, viz CRR No. 3043 of 2014, CRR No. 3045 of 2014 and CRR No. 3046 of 2014.
(2.) THOSE criminal revisions were taken up for hearing together, since their prosecution under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was challenged on an identical question of law that at the time of issuance of the cheque they were no more the Director in the accused/company and long before they have resigned from their respective posts of Director by submitting Form 32 of the Companies Act.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is found in CRR No.3042 of 2014 and CRR No. 3044 of 2014, although Rajiv Kishanchand Chhabra sought for quashing of the impugned proceeding on the ground of his resignation from the post of Director of the accused company Spanco Ltd, before the issuance of the cheque by submitting Form -32, but the copies of Form -32, which were filed with the aforesaid criminal revisional applications on affidavit relate to different person, Pravin Kumar. Similar is the situation in respect of CRR No.3045 of 2014 and CRR No.3046 of 2014. In those two matters, the petitioner is one Pravin Kumar, but the copies of the Form -32 annexed with the applications on affidavit are of different person Rajiv Kishanchand Chhabra. Having regard to the facts, the very documents, on which the petitioners are seeking quashing of the impugned complaint cases, do not substantiate their claim, both the criminal revisional applications are dismissed and disposed of. So far as the CRR No. 3043 of 2014 is concerned, it is claimed that the petitioner Pravin Kumar resigned from the post of Director of the accused -company, Spanco BPO Services Limited with effect from March 2, 2013, but it appears from the records that Form -32 was submitted to the Registrars of Company on April 15, 2013, whereas the dishonoured cheque was issued on 12/04/2013. Therefore, the petitioner's case fails and accordingly stands dismissed and disposed of.;