Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.25 seconds)
Sh. Anil Rai vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office ... on 21 November, 2009 cites

Maksud Saiyed vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 18 September, 2007

Merely because the accused happened to be the Promoters/ Directors does not make him ipso facto liable for all the wrongs that might have committed during the relevant course of time. There is plethora of case law that under the Penal Code, the issue of vicarious responsibility or liability does not arise. Vicarious responsibility of the Managing Director, Director, Promoters Directors or that of the Auditor could arise provided any proviso exist in that behalf in the statute. Reference in this connection can be had to decision in Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Ors (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel. Of course, there might be a case of accused persons having committed certain acts or 10 omissions pursuant to a criminal conspiracy. At the same time, there has to be some prima facie material that the revisionist was in collusion or criminal conspiracy with other accused persons thereby indulging in the act of diversion of funds. This does not come out from a bare reading of the allegations in the complaint and on consideration of documents filed. The same is the position in regard to petitioners/ revisionist in Criminal Revision no. 09/09, C. R. No. 22/09 as well as C. R. No. 33/09. To simplify, what this Court wishes to state is that the exact role of each and every accused in the alleged act of misappropriation and cheating has to be clearly brought out. The impugned order dated 02.05.2007 reflects that the Assistant Director being a public servant was exempted in view of proviso of section 200 Cr.P.C. from giving his evidence and the cognizance was taken on the basis of allegations levelled in the complaint as well as documents filed. The wording of Section 200 Cr.P.C leaves a discretion to the Magistrate indicating that the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witness if it has been made by a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties. At the same time, where the allegations in the complaint are in the nature as described in the preceding para, to my mind, it was incumbent on the Ld. Court to postpone the issue of process and inquire into the case as per Section 200 of the Cr.P.C and the Ld. MM should have called upon the complainant to produce his evidence so as to reflect about the exact nature and role played by each of the accused persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 412 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd.& Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 December, 2008

10. Undoubtedly, issuance of summons is not an inter locutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. per para 8 in the latest judgment Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2009 I AD (Crl.) SC 627. At the outset, the impugned order of taking cognizance of offence and summoning of the revisionist(s) passed by Ld. ACMM cannot be sustained. Pleas raised by Mr. Puneet Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist just cannot be brushed aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 195 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next