Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Resigned Directors Not Liable for Post-Resignation Offenses in Cheque Dishonor Cases U/S 138 N.I. Act – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal ruling, the court has underscored that individuals who have resigned from directorship positions in companies cannot be held criminally liable for offenses occurring after their resignation. This landmark judgment sheds light on the interpretation of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in cases of cheque dishonor.

The case revolved around a petitioner who had served as a Director of the accused firms until August 20, 2013. The petitioner faced allegations of cheque dishonor related to a cheque issued on January 20, 2018. The pivotal issue was whether the petitioner could be held liable for offenses that took place after her resignation.

The court examined crucial documents, including Form-32 and annual returns, which clearly indicated the petitioner's resignation from the directorship. Notably, there was no substantive evidence provided to dispute the authenticity of these documents.

The judgment emphasized that "merely because the accused did not reply to the legal notice denying her Directorship, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner." The court held that liability could not be affixed upon the petitioner for events occurring after her resignation as Director.

Consequently, the court quashed the complaint, orders of summoning, and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner alone. However, proceedings would continue against other accused parties, including the Company.

This judgment offers clarity on the issue of vicarious liability for directors who have resigned from their positions, setting a significant legal precedent. It reaffirms the principle that individuals who have severed their ties with a company cannot be held criminally responsible for the company's actions post-resignation.

Legal experts have hailed this judgment as a crucial step in safeguarding the rights and legal standing of former directors, protecting them from unwarranted criminal proceedings based on post-resignation activities of the company.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2023

BHUPINDER KAUR vs M/S SOHAN LAL MOHAN LAL AND ANR 

Latest Legal News