Delhi District Court
Neetu Chawla vs Seth Colour Chem on 20 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE: 01 (EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURT/DELHI
Crl. (R) No. 11/15
Neetu Chawla
r/o Flat No. 303, Block A/2 (Kingsway Bery)
TDI City Kundli, (Sonipat), Haryana ...... Revisionist
Versus
Seth Colour Chem
r/o IX/4839, Old Seelampur
New Delhi110031. .... Respondent
Order:
1. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2014 passed in an N.I.Act case whereby the application of the accused no. 7 therein (and the revisionist herein) stood dismissed.
Vide the said application, the accused no. 7 (revisionist) had prayed for setting aside her summoning order as well as for her discharge/acquittal.
2. File perused. Counsels heard.
3. In the petition in hand it is averred that in the complaint under section 138 N.I.Act it was no where mentioned as to how the accused no.7 (revisionist) was responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused no.1 Crl.R.No. 11/15 Neetu Chawla vs. Seth Colour Chem Page No. 1 out of 3 company and that she was not the Director/Vice Chairman of the accused company.
4. On the basis of the material on record the petition in hand is found to be devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. The followings are the findings in this regard: (A) The Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application of the accused no.7 (revisionist herein) on two accounts i.e. it was having no powers to review its own orders and, otherwise also, the application (moved before the Ld. Trial Court) was without any merits.
Perusal of the complaint case file does reveal that there was nothing such as to find fault with the observations of the Ld. Trial Court. The cumulative reading of section 138 and section 141 of N.I.Act makes it clear that it was sufficient for the purpose of a complaint u/s 138 N.I.Act to allege therein that such 'n' such persons were In Charge and /or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or firm. In the given context the same requirement has duly been taken care of in the very narration of the complaint more particularly in its paras no. 3 and 7.
Crl.R.No. 11/15 Neetu Chawla vs. Seth Colour Chem Page No. 2 out of 3 (B) When it is specifically alleged in the complaint that a person is one of the Directors of the company (as in the given case accused no.7/revisionist is), the question whether he/she was or was not a Director; becomes a question of fact to be proved at the trial. It finds support from the case law titled as Sudhavenkata Laxmi (P.) vs. Sree Chakra Cotton Company (2002) 112 Comp Cas 32 (SC). Moreover the specific plea that such 'n' such person was not one of the Directors responsible for the day to day affairs of the company; is something that is particularly within the knowledge of the accused persons and it is for them/him/her to establish at the trial that at the relevant time they/he/she were /was not responsible for the affairs of the company.
5. It is thus clear that the present revisionist petition is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly disposed off as dismissed. TCR along with copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court (RAGHUBIR SINGH) on 20.08.2015 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI Crl.R.No. 11/15 Neetu Chawla vs. Seth Colour Chem Page No. 3 out of 3