9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Compliance with notice requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Liability of individuals under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Interpretation of roles and responsibilities in the context of criminal liability. Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings: The petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sought to quash proceedings in a case involving dishonored cheques issued by a company to the complainant. The petitioner, the sixth accused, argued for quashing the proceedings on various grounds, including the lack of compliance with legal requirements. Issue 2: Compliance with Notice Requirements: The contention was raised that the petitioner, as accused No. 6, was not separately served a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, it was argued that notice to the company and its managing director sufficed, as per the provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act. Issue 3: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: Section 141 imposes liability on individuals associated with a company for offenses committed under Section 138. The complaint alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 7, including the petitioner as a commercial manager, were in charge of the company's affairs related to the transactions in question, thus rendering them liable under the Act. Issue 4: Interpretation of Roles and Responsibilities: The debate centered on whether the petitioner's role as a commercial manager was sufficient to hold him criminally liable under Section 138. The complaint detailed the responsibilities of accused Nos. 2 to 7, attributing them with being in charge of the company's affairs, including the petitioner's involvement in requesting time for payment. The judgment emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted in scrutinizing the complaint, and the determination of roles and responsibilities should be left for trial proceedings. The court concluded that the criteria for quashing the proceedings were not met, dismissing the petition. However, the petitioner was allowed to request dispensation of personal attendance at trial due to leaving the company, subject to representation and compliance with court directives.
|
