9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Allegations of responsibility in the conduct of company affairs for cheque issuance. - Lack of specific averments against petitioners in the complaints. - Interpretation of Sections 141(1) and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - Application of legal precedents to the current case. - Decision on quashing the proceedings based on the allegations in the complaint. The judgment concerns multiple petitioners accused in private complaints related to cheque dishonor cases. The petitioners, including company officials, sought quashing of proceedings due to the absence of specific allegations connecting them to the offense. The key contention was the lack of averments indicating their role in the company's affairs regarding the issued cheques. The complainant argued that although not explicitly stated, the petitioners' consent and connivance were mentioned in the complaints, invoking Section 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined the complaints and the relevant legal provisions, particularly Sections 141(1) and 141(2) of the Act. Section 141(1) holds individuals responsible for company offenses if in charge of business conduct, while Section 141(2) extends liability to those whose neglect or connivance led to the offense. The complainant's argument relied on attributing the offense to the petitioners' failure to make payments despite statutory notices, as per Section 141(2). Legal precedents were cited to support both parties' arguments, emphasizing the necessity of specific averments in complaints to establish offenses. The court highlighted that mere positions in a company do not imply guilt, but allegations of involvement in the offense are crucial. The judgment referenced a decision affirming that proceedings can only be quashed if no offense is evident from the complaint itself. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the complaints contained sufficient averments linking the petitioners to the offense. The judge's decision aligned with legal principles, emphasizing the importance of allegations in complaints to determine the validity of proceedings. The outcome rested on the interpretation of Sections 141(1) and 141(2) in connection with the specific accusations made against the petitioners in the complaints.
|
