9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the quashing of criminal proceedings against the second accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on the grounds of the complaint being filed after the statutory period and the interpretation of the liability of an authorized signatory. Details: Issue 1: Complaint filed after statutory period: The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the complaint was lodged after the statutory period prescribed in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was over. However, the court noted that the proviso to Section 142 allows for the court to consider a complaint even after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown. The petitioner's counsel focused on the second contention regarding liability as an authorized signatory. Issue 2: Liability of an authorized signatory: The petitioner, as the authorized signatory of his wife's proprietary concern, issued a cheque that was dishonored. The petitioner contended that he cannot be prosecuted solely for signing and issuing the cheque on behalf of another person. The court analyzed Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with offenses committed by companies, and noted that a proprietary concern does not fall under the definition of a company. Referring to previous judgments, the court held that only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Act. Since the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the petitioner, the prosecution against him was deemed unsustainable. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and therefore, the criminal proceedings against him in C.C. No. 493/2008 were quashed. It was clarified that the quashing of proceedings applied only to the petitioner, not the other accused.
|
