9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the agreement between the parties. 2. Allegation of obtaining cheques under threat. 3. Non-joinder of the company as a necessary party to the proceedings. Summary: 1. Validity of the Agreement: The complainant produced the agreement (Ex. P151) which detailed the terms for the supply of beheaded and gutted "Rani fish" and was signed by the accused. This fact was undisputed in the oral evidence. The accused's letter (Ex. D5) also acknowledged the agreement, confirming the existence of a contractual relationship for the supply of fish. 2. Allegation of Obtaining Cheques Under Threat: The accused admitted in cross-examination that the complainant was accompanied by only one person, contrary to the claim of being threatened by multiple individuals. The accused also acknowledged that the cheque (Ex. P1) was given by another director, Sushanth Welkar, who was not examined by the defense. The presence of multiple telephones in the office and the lack of immediate police complaint further weakened the accused's claim of duress. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove that the cheques were obtained under threat or duress. 3. Non-Joinder of the Company: The revisionist argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the company was not made a party. However, the court referred to multiple precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which established that a complaint against a director or person in charge of the company is maintainable even if the company itself is not arraigned as an accused. The court cited Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and similar provisions under other statutes, concluding that the prosecution of the company is not a sine qua non for prosecuting its directors. Conclusion: The court upheld the conviction and sentence ordered by the lower courts, finding no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition was dismissed with no costs.
|
