9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is required to be given to every person in charge of a company committing an offence under section 138. Analysis: The judgment deals with the question of whether individual notice is required to be given to every person in charge of a company committing an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court considered the case where a partnership firm issued dishonored cheques and the partners were subsequently arraigned as accused persons. The main contention raised was that without individual notice to each partner, the complaint against them was not maintainable. The petitioner argued that the underlying purpose of the Act is to provide an opportunity for the accused to make payment and absolve themselves from criminal liability, necessitating notice to each accused individual. However, the respondent contended that section 138 of the Act only requires notice to be given to the drawer of the cheque, not to every person in charge of the company. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly section 141, which deems every person in charge of a company, at the time of the offence, to be guilty and liable to be proceeded against. The court interpreted that the legislative intention was not to mandate individual notice to every person in charge of the company. It emphasized that individuals in such positions are presumed to have knowledge of the company's transactions and are responsible for its conduct. Therefore, the court concluded that only the drawer of the cheque needs to be given notice under section 138, and no other individuals are required to be notified. The judgment cited precedents from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Madras High Court, which supported the view that individual notice to partners or persons in charge of a company is not necessary in cases of dishonored cheques. The court agreed with these decisions, stating that partners in a firm, deemed as a company under the Act, are automatically implicated in such cases without the need for separate notices. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications, upholding the trial court's decision to arraign the partners as accused persons based on the legal provisions of sections 138 and 141 of the Act. In conclusion, the court found that the arraignment of the partners as accused persons without individual notice was in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized that the statutory requirement for notice under section 138 of the Act is limited to the drawer of the cheque, and partners or individuals in charge of the company are deemed to be aware and responsible for the company's transactions. Therefore, the court dismissed the applications and discharged the rule nisi issued in each case, with parties bearing their own costs.
|
