Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) As all these cases involve same questions of law and fact, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.
(2.) This is a second round of litigation by and between the parties. By judgment and order dated 25th June, 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the impugned criminal proceeding under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. In the earlier bout of litigation, the instant prosecution had been assailed before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners. In the said proceeding the High Court had framed two questions:- (1) Whether the Directors can be prosecuted on the bald assertion made in the complaint, that "the Directors thereof and were at the time when the offence committed in charge of and were responsible for the conduct and day to day business of the said accused no.1 Company"? (2) Whether the Director who has resigned can be prosecuted after his resignation has been accepted by the Board of the Directors of the Company?
(3.) After hearing the parties by judgment and order a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the impugned proceeding, inter alia, on the ground of absence of material averments in the petition of complaint. This Court observed except the averment that the petitioners being the directors of the accused Company were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of day-to-day business of the Company, nothing had been stated in the complaint as to what part was played by them, how they are responsible for the funding of the Company, issuance of cheques and whether they had control of the funds of the Company. This Court did not express any opinion on the second question framed. The aforesaid judgment and order was assailed by the complainant/opposite party no.1 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court by its judgment and order dated 17th October, 2014, affirmed the quashing of the proceeding against Sobha Mehta. By the self-same judgment, the Apex Court remanded the matter for fresh hearing before this Court so far as the other directors were concerned in the light of the decisions considered and conclusion drawn in the aforesaid judgment. It was further observed in the said judgment that the matter be considered independently and as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months.;