9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Liability of company officials - Imposition of jail sentence in default of payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: The case involved a revision filed against a judgment maintaining the conviction and sentence of a General Manager under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarding compensation to a non-applicant. The non-applicant alleged that the General Manager, along with other officials, placed an order for transportation, received the material, and presented dishonored cheques for payment. The General Manager challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of responsibility for the company's conduct and improper notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) of the Act. The Court noted that officials in charge of the company's business can be prosecuted without naming the company as an accused, and the notice served to the company suffices. The Court upheld the conviction based on the actions of the accused individuals in handling the transaction. The defense argued against the imposition of a jail sentence in default of compensation payment under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They contended that compensation should not be considered as a fine, and there was no provision for a jail sentence in default of compensation. However, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Suganthi Suresh Kumar's case, which allowed for the imposition of a jail sentence in default of compensation. Despite the arguments presented, the Court found the imposition of a jail sentence in such cases to be within the legal framework. In conclusion, after considering the factual and legal aspects of the case, the Court found no merit in the revision and dismissed it. The judgment highlighted the liability of company officials for offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act and affirmed the authority to impose a jail sentence in default of compensation payment as per Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in line with the Supreme Court's precedent.
|
