9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in relation to the institution and continuation of criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. Analysis of the legal implications of advance intimation by the drawer to the drawee before presenting the cheques for encashment. 3. Examination of the liability of directors in a company under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Interpretation of Section 22 of SICA: The judgment addresses the argument raised by the petitioners regarding the legal bar under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) against the institution and continuation of criminal proceedings. The court clarifies that the provisions of section 22 of SICA apply only to specific actions against the properties of a sick industrial unit, not criminal prosecution against the company. Citing a previous judgment, the court concludes that the bar under section 22 does not affect the institution and continuation of criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Advance Intimation and Dishonour of Cheques: The judgment delves into the legal implications of advance intimation by the drawer to the drawee before presenting the cheques for encashment. It references the Supreme Court's rulings in cases related to dishonoured cheques and advance intimation. The court emphasizes that simple advance intimation without sufficient and legally tenable reasons does not absolve the drawer from criminal liability under section 138 of the Act. Detailed and justifiable reasons must accompany the intimation to prevent abuse of the law and encourage honesty in financial transactions. In the cases discussed, the court finds that the advance intimations provided by the petitioners did not contain legally tenable grounds and did not excuse the dishonour of the cheques, leading to the presumption of dishonest intention and criminal liability. Liability of Directors in a Company: The judgment also addresses the liability of directors in a company under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. It clarifies that in the case of a company, directors are primarily liable for the company's actions, subject to their participation and knowledge. The court explains that a company, as a legal entity, acts through human agency, and individuals representing the company can be held liable for criminal offenses committed by the company. Therefore, specific allegations against the human agency, such as directors, are not mandatory in cases involving companies. The court emphasizes that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, including the directors, is lawful and aligns with the principles of the Act. In conclusion, the judgment rejects the petitions filed by the accused for quashing the criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The court emphasizes the importance of allowing the legal process to proceed, considering the prima facie satisfaction of the elements of the offense. It highlights the need to avoid premature interference in the prosecution process and stresses the sparing use of inherent powers to prevent abuse of the court's processes. The court denies the applications, stating they lack merit and dismisses the need for further consideration, thereby upholding the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
|
