Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Secondly, it may also be noted that two of the cases covered by the three Judge Bench decision in Aneeta Hada's case were in respect of Crl.Appeal Nos.1483 and 1484 of 2009 which pertain to the interpretation of Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which is in pari materia in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therein, the Director of the said Company was prosecuted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 Crl.M.C.497/15 ::10::

"61. Presently, we shall advert to the other two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeals Nos.1483 and 1484 of 2009 wherein the offence is under Section 67 read with Section 85 of the 2000 Act. In Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2009, the Director of the Company is the appellant and in Criminal Appeal No.1484 of 2009, the Company. Both of them have called in question the legal substantiality of the same order passed by the High Court.
62. In the said case, the High Court followed the decision in Sheoratan Agarwal and, while dealing with the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of Avnish Bajaj, the Managing Director of the Company, quashed the charges under Sections 292 and 294 of the Penal Code and directed the offences under Section 67 read with Section 85 of the 2000 Act to continue. It is apt to note that the learned Single Judge has observed that a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 292(2)(a) and 292(2)(b) of the Penal Code is also made out against the Company.