SAURABH C CHOKSI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the present case stated briefly that the present application is directed for quashing of Criminal Case No. 132/2001 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, which was filed against the present petitioner by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of Sec. 220(3)of Companies Act. That the complainant respondent no. 2 - Deputy Registrar, Registrar of Companies for Gujarat, has filed the said complaint against the petitioner and then the process was issued by the trial Court, therefore, the present petitioner has filed this application under sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT is submitted by the petitioner that in the above Criminal Case, accused no. 1 M/s. Pan India Forest and Land Development Ltd., is a limited company. The petitioner was Non -Executive Director of the said company. It is also contended that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession and also Principal of JG College of Commerce. The petitioner was never in -charge of affairs of the company and never attended any meeting nor signed any document on behalf of the company and also not aware about the financial position of the said company. It is also contended by the petitioner that he has resigned from the Directorship of the said company on 1.4.1999 and Form No. 32 has been placed on record at Annexure -B to this application. It is also the say of the petitioner that complaint filed by respondent no. 2 for non -filing of the Annual Return which was required to be filed with the complainant's office on or before 30.11.1999. In view of this, the petitioner submitted that the offence has been committed on 1.12.1999 and on the said date, the petitioner was not Director of the said company. It is also contended by the petitioner that he had resigned on 1.4.1999, that is, much before the offence and, therefore, he cannot be booked under the said offence. It is further contended by the petitioner that on 1.12.1999, the petitioner had no relationship with the company, therefore, complaint is not maintainable against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Raju Kothari has vehemently argued that the petitioner was a Non -Executive Director but not in -charge of day to day affairs of the company, and therefore, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon him. From the perusal of complaint at Annexure -A, and From No. 32 which is at page 10 of this application, it appears that from Column No. 5 and 6 of the Form No. 32 that on the alleged date, he was not a Executive Director of the said company.