9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Barred by limitation - Allegations against third petitioner - Scope of sections 138 and 141 of the Act. Analysis: The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for an alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, related to a dishonoured cheque issued in settlement of a bill of exchange. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the complaint was time-barred and lacked necessary allegations against the third petitioner as per section 141 of the Act. The petitioners contended that the complaint was time-barred and lacked specific averments against the third petitioner as required under section 141 of the Act. However, the court noted that the limitation aspect was not substantiated, and the complaint did not provide sufficient details about the involvement of the third petitioner, citing a previous decision in support of this argument. The respondent argued that since the third petitioner was the vice-president of the company, he should be impleaded in the proceedings as he was actively involved in the company's affairs. The court observed that mere designation as vice-president was not enough to implicate the third petitioner without clear allegations of his participation in the offence. The court delved into the interpretation of sections 138 and 141 of the Act, emphasizing that only individuals responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence could be deemed guilty. It clarified that section 141 was not about penal liability but evidence relating to the offence under section 138. Further, the court highlighted that section 141(1) specified that only individuals in charge of the company's business at the time of the offence could be held guilty. It emphasized that individuals not actively involved in the business at the time of the offence could not be prosecuted under section 138, ensuring the provision's purpose was not defeated. The court differentiated between the liabilities of individuals under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 141, indicating that not all partners or directors needed to be included in the complaint. It clarified that liability extended to those directly responsible for the offence, emphasizing that all partners or directors need not be implicated. Consequently, the court allowed the petition in part, quashing the proceedings against the third petitioner while allowing the proceedings to continue against the other accused. The magistrate was directed to dispose of the case against the remaining accused in accordance with the law, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Act.
|
