Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2011 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1202 - SUPREME COURTCriminal complaint - sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - cheques issued by the accused - bank directed to stop payment - Accused No. 1 is a partnership firm and Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are partners thereof and Accused No. 3 is signatory of the impugned cheques and all partners are looking after day to day affairs of the accused firm and thus the liability as raised by them is joint and several - Held that:- there is no legal requirement for the complainant to show that the accused partner of the firm was aware about each and every transaction. On the other hand, proviso to section 141 of the Act clearly lays down that if the accused is able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the offence was committed without his knowledge or he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, he will not be liable of punishment. - But vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners 'qua' the firm. The High Court should not have interfered with the cognizance of the complaints having been taken by the trial court. The High Court could not have discharged the respondents of the said liability at the threshold. Unless parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible to come to definite conclusion as to what was the date when the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the Respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm. Matter restored before trial court.
|