9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against an accused who is not a director but is implicated due to marital relation and health condition. Analysis: The petitioner, accused in cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to quash complaints contending she is not a director of the company but is implicated due to her marital relation and health condition. The complainant argued that as per the complaint, all directors are responsible for the company's affairs, including issuing cheques without funds. The court noted previous cases where prosecution was allowed based on involvement in day-to-day affairs. The court referred to section 141 of the Act, which includes persons in managerial roles for penal liability. The court highlighted the importance of evidence during trial to prove innocence. The court emphasized that the business of a company is usually handled by its directors, and specific allegations were made against the petitioner regarding her role in the company's affairs and the cheque issuance. The court noted the provision in section 141(1) allowing the accused to prove lack of consent or knowledge in the offence. The court cited a recent Supreme Court case, stating complaints cannot be quashed based solely on petition averments. The court held that the petitioner's claim of being ailing was not a valid ground for immunity from prosecution. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, stating that the petitioner can present evidence during the trial to prove innocence regarding her directorial role or lack of knowledge in the offence. The court highlighted the need for factual evidence and rejected the claim of immunity based on health condition.
|
