Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NEMI CHAND SANKHLA versus STATE & ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NEMI CHAND SANKHLA v STATE & ANR - CRLMP Case No. 448 of 2005 [2005] RD-RJ 1334 (16 August 2005)

,

-:: ::- : : . ! !

* + -- ! / : 448/2005

***** : 16 5 2005 ,

-: 5 :- 5 8

- . . - .. +, . .. *+, . - ..

***** : ! ! / 482 G ..G. L!M JQ/

J

G T J M T Y L!M-! /Q

J

G! 2417/2004, _ M! ! ! bJ , ef , _M ! ! ! h ij Y, h L!M

J J

G J _ J T T

M ! / J _J ! /Q _ _ ef t _u u _ M ! !_! LL ! /Q h M! !t f h e /J 6,00,000/- G 21.9.03 _ L!M ! j ! Y J _ | _f ( ) . J | J T Y ! J ! ! Y J!Q /J e , _

MQ _ J j ! j Y ! f iQ tG ! ! Y L!M _ j~ | J t

J j ! ! Y , JQ/ G t ! J !

J ! Y ! LQ Y f Q.1 /J _J f J _ f Q.3 JQ/ G _ ! ! Y iQ J | J _ tG ! ! Y t J | J T Y ! J

M j ! ! Y : Y L!M-! /Q f J _ G ! ! Y Y _ LQ !f t Qe ! ! ! h / t Y J ! J uJ J f ef h iQ J (_! 107) (J / ! ! !)

J 474 (|t./... J |t j ~tJt L Y.) ! J ! ! _ LQ G J Y J ! J f _ LQ !f t J h / t Y J T J !_! LL ! /Q ! LQ G

J f

J |f M _ iL tG _, J J h L!M _

J _M ! / ! ! ! ! ! j tG _ ij h uJ J t 1996 (7) MQ _f 6 (Q

Q J j J Q |bJ Y.) G (2000) 6 MQ _f

J 338 (J .Q. j _ _Q) ! J

J uJ MQ j! , _ ! J T LQ !

J f ! ! f L!M-! /Q !

J

Y ! J _ J ! ! Y J ! J !u /J iQ | J T Y ! J ! ! Y iQ _

J tG j ! ! Y !_! LL ! /Q G! 2 T J j M!

G !t L!M J ! ! !f J M T

J ! _J J t J 6,10,000/- eJ ! J M

T /f j jJ/ J M LJJ _ jJ/

M

M J ! _ ! ! jJ/Q LM ! G 1.9.2001 _ M J J ! ! !f J M

T ! _J J ! J 6,10,000/- T Q

T ! f ! ! L!M G f 21.9.03 _ 6,00,000/- /J ! ! _ j h ! _ 26.9.03 _ j LM !

J G 1.10.03 _ |f _ LQ ! ! M L!M _ T !Q tG T

T , ! J ! !_! LL ! /Q G.2

J 1.9.02 T Q T LQ ! f ! ! LQ f h L!M G ! ! e , j

J J

Mf G LQ M ! ! MQ T t ! _ /MT Y 313 G ..G. Q j! M

J J

Y J t J G b ! t _ /MT _, 482

G ..G. T ! G J tG T Q / ! LQ f iQ ! | !J _ LQ J j J T ! tG Y uJ J ef h iQ J (_! f J 125) (MQ _f) 188 (.Q.MM Y. j M !

" . . Y.) ! J! ! ! !

G f b ! j t J ! ! /

J !

LQ b ! ~ h _ LQ f J

JJ _u u M !u f _ ! ! !_! LL ! /Q J / ! ! ! _ ! J ! Y h ! ! ! Y 138 i! ! ! Y

J J ! /J ! ! , J J ij h t !

J / e J h j h M ! / e ! /J iQ T J ! ! Y J h J _ LQ

L/ tG Y /J j~ YJG | !J T J ! ! e ! ! Y ! J ! ! Y _ ! tG e J J ! J h ! /J ! _ 138 i! ! tG /

J

Y h LQ L!M _ j~ YJG | !J ! iQ t T Y ! J L!M tG j ! ! e ,

J J ! J ! ! e L!M J J ! J h J _ /J tG ! e , ! ! !

Q !_! LL ! /Q Q! / ! ! ! _ ! / f T J ! J |f J / ,

J ij h J , h Q G / f f J ! ! J / ! ! J _ iL tG _ _ ! b ! ! / tG Y, ! e ! _ J j tG ! J _ L!M _ |/ f ! / t !_! LL ! /Q G.2 T J _

J ! Q! / ! ! ! J ! Y, LQ JJ _ ! ! .Q.MM Y. j M !

" . . Y. (_) J Y 8 J 11 h Q!

G J / ! ! ! J _ Y, i Y :

"8. We find that the prayers before the courts below essentially were to drop the proceedings on the ground that the allegations would not constitute a foundation for action in terms of section 141 of the Act. These questions have to be adjudicated at the trial. Whether a person is in charge of or is responsible to the company for conduct of business is to be adjudicated on the basis of materials to be placed by the parties. Sub-section (2) of section 141 is deeming provision which as noted supra operates in certain specified circumstances. Whether the requirements for the application of the deeming provision exist or not is again a matter for adjudication during trial. Similarly, whether the allegations contained are sufficient to attract culpability is a matter for adjudication at the trial. 9. Under the scheme of the Act, if the person committing an offence under section 138 of the Act is a company, by application of section 141 it is deemed that every person who is in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company as well as the company are guilty of the offence. A person who proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence is exempted from becoming liable by operation of the proviso to sub-section (1). The burden in this regard has to be discharged by the accused. 10. The three categories of persons covered by section 141 are as follows :

(1) The company who committed the offence.

(2) Everyone who was in charge of and was responsible for the business of the company.

(3) Any other person who is a director or a manager or a secretary or officer of the company with whose connivance or due to whose neglect the company has committed the offence. 11. Whether or not the evidence to be led would establish the accusations is a matter for trial. It needs no reiteration that proviso to sub-section (1) of section 141 enables the accused to prove his innocence by discharging the burden which lies on him.

JJ _u u ~ / !

J ! !_!

LL ! /Q ! ! /J j~ iQ | !J T f J

Y ! J ! ! e J ! J j ! !

Y , 138 i! ! L!M

J J _ LQ tG / !u /J _ LQ ! ! Y iQ | !J T Y ! J ! ! Y iQ _ !

J | !J _ tG j ! ! Y ij h ij h uJ J / ! ! ! ! |t./... J |t

J j ~tJt L Y. (_) J ! Y j !_!

LL ! /Q G.2 Q! / ! ! ! ! .Q.MM Y. j M ! " . . Y. (_)

G

J ! Y h ! ! ! Y J u h

G !f t _ ! J T T Q _ _ LQ

M 138 i! ! tG jJ 141 i! ! J ij

J J h j , _ M tG Y, !J j h Q J

J t ! JJ j ! _ Q h ! e

J J iQ !~ ~ ! iJ _ e

J J ! L!_ /

J / ij h Q! / ! ! ! J 141 u T ! ! J M !t

J ! 141 u ! ! ! h ! JJ

J J j t J j M f! ! Y

J _u u M !u _ j

J J !u h

J h ! Q M e Y !

L!M JQ/ G M ! ! Y

J

J h ! ! ! ! Y L!M JQ/ G 1.9.01 _ J ! ! !f J M 6,10,000/- eJ

T Q LQ h t eQ GJ 21.9.03 _

J 6,00,000/- /J L!M J ! j, J _|, _M ! _ ! , _ /J _ ! _ J J J j LQ tG t Y J _J G 26.2.04 _

G ! ! /J L!M _ j _

J

J J _ | _f ( .) . | !J T

J

Y ! J M MQ LQ j! M MQ J

J

J j! _ h Y L!M JQ/ G _ Q Y _

J J ! ! Y h Yu T _J

J 6,10,000/- _| eJ GJ 6,00,000/- /J _ JJ f 1 ! J h Q ! Y

J J _ G _f ( .) . _ _ tG ! , JQ/ _ t _ ! e , iQ _ h tG j ! Y JQ/ _ LQ | !J T Y ! J M tG j ! Y _ ! !f t _ J G G J

J _ J T T

M h J |f J J J ! t Y h

JQ/ G ! Y ! J J ! !

J

Y j~ | !J J tG ! ! Y t

J iQ _ _ j ! ! Y h L!M

G 26.2.04 _ ! ! e G JJ j

J J

L!M _ j ! Y z J |f _ J ! !

J

Y L!_ T ! Q /MT Y L!M j! h _J

J J u G t b ! _ /MT _, Q j M /J | !J

J

T Y ! J ! ! e ! J J ! ! Y , _ ! J ! !f t _ t J, ! !_/ Q tG _ L!M _ J _J t G T J ! / e G J _ LQ LQ f h /M~Q

J tG t h MQ T ! Q /MT Y, j! M t _J J J e!u _ J J M J t J 482

G ..G. G J _ ! ! J

J J

T !f t _ _ ! / tG Y ! LQ j ! ! Y _ LM LQ ! ! Y, j M

J J T ! tG h 6,10,000/- L!M-! /Q J j ! Y /J LQ ! j ! ! Y QT ! /J iQ J

J ! ! L!M T ! iJ t jQ Y e tG, !J ! J j J t J J

J

J L!M ! J Y e tG, T

J

LQ ! Q Y J _ j M _u u _

LQ ! J , _ LQ M M Q j T J _ J J M, QT _ LQ !f t Qe ! ! ! h / t Y, J J J / tG h ! Q /MT Y,

L!M j! _J J Y, e _ ! J M _

J

LQ Q Y, L!M J ! Q jt! h

Y _u u _ M Qe ! ! ! jG _

M ! J h G _ _ J, ! / h _ j tG , _

J e T Q Y

J

(! ! / !f)

M


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.