9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners were liable for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to summon the petitioners. 3. Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the liability of directors. 4. The necessity for specific allegations against directors in the complaint. 5. The court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to adjudicate facts during the trial. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The petitioners were summoned by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) along with the principal accused, M/s. Mahakali Processors Ltd., for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged that a cheque for Rs. 2,75,000/- issued by the accused company was dishonoured due to account closure, and despite notice under Section 138, payment was not made. Issue 2: Sufficiency of Allegations in the Complaint The petitioners challenged the order on the grounds that they had resigned as directors before the date of the cheque and that the complaint did not contain sufficient allegations to prosecute them. The court held that the question of resignation was a factual matter to be addressed during the trial and could not be adjudicated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The court examined whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to summon the petitioners under Section 141 of the Act, which deals with offences by companies. Section 141(1) states that every person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence shall be deemed guilty. However, the Supreme Court in various judgments, including Katta Sujatha vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., clarified that not all directors are responsible for the conduct of the business unless specific allegations are made against them. Issue 4: Necessity for Specific Allegations Against Directors The court emphasized that the complaint must specify how a particular director is responsible for the offence. Simply being a director does not automatically make one liable under Section 141. The complainant must allege specific acts or omissions connecting the director to the offence. The Supreme Court in Katta Sujatha and other cases held that directors could only be summoned if they were in charge of the business or if the offence was committed with their consent or connivance. Issue 5: Court's Power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The court noted that it could not adjudicate on factual matters such as whether the petitioners had resigned as directors at the relevant time. Such issues must be addressed during the trial. Conclusion: The court concluded that the allegations against the petitioners were insufficient to summon them for the offence committed by M/s. Mahakali Processors Ltd. The complaint merely contained bald allegations without specifying the petitioners' roles in the offence. Consequently, the court set aside the CMM's order summoning the petitioners but clarified that this would not restrict the CMM or any magistrate from summoning the petitioners at a later stage if sufficient evidence was produced. Advisory: The court advised Metropolitan Magistrates to exercise caution before summoning directors under Section 141 of the Act. Magistrates should personally examine the complainant to ascertain the specific roles and responsibilities of the accused in the conduct of the company's business. This would prevent harassment of innocent persons and reduce delays in case disposal. The registry was directed to circulate the judgment to Metropolitan Magistrates for compliance.
|
