Yusuf Karim Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 November, 2022
In the judgment relied by Mr. Roy, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 in the case of "Ashutosh Ashok
Parasrampuriya and Another v. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. and
Others(supra), it has been also said in paragraph no.21 of the said
judgment, that it is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under
Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person
accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of
the company. In paragraph no.27 of the said judgment, considering that it
has been averred that the petitioner of that case was the Incharge of the
company that is why the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has said and held that it
is the subject matter of the trial, however, in the case in hand, the
complainant itself has admitted in the complaint petition that the accused
nos.4,5,7,8,9 and 10 are looking after the day-to-day affairs of the
company and the facts of that case is on different footing, and that is why
this judgment is not helping the case of the O.P.No.2.