Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In support of his arguments learned Senior counsel for complainant has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) S.P.Mani & Mohan Diary Vs. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan(S.P.Mani)9
(ii) Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya and Anr., Vs. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Ors.

(Ashutosh)10

(iv) Sunil Todi and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Sunil Todi)11

(v) Gunmala Sales Private Limited Vs. Anu Mehta (Gunmala)12 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1238 2021 SCC OnLine SC 915 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174 CRL.P NO.100153/2023 C/W CRL.P NO.100154/2023

(ix) In Sunil Todi also it was held that there was sufficient averments in the complaint to raise a prima facie case against the accused and it is only at the trial that they could take recourse to the proviso to Section 141 and not at the stage of issuance of process.

(x) In Gunmala also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the basic requirement under Section 141 is to make specific averment in the complaint that accused Directors, who were neither signatories to the cheques nor Managing Directors/Joint Managing Directors of company at the time of commission of CRL.P NO.100153/2023 C/W CRL.P NO.100154/2023 offence, were incharge of and responsible to company for conduct of its business.