9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to maintainability of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Analysis: 1. Maintainability Challenge: The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged that the accused petitioners were responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of the company. The petitioners argued that they were not directly responsible for the day-to-day business operations but were involved in policy-making only. The petitioners relied on precedents like K.N. Genda v. State, Mahalderam Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. D.N. Prodhan, and G. Atherton and Co. v. Corporation of Calcutta to support their claim. These cases emphasized the need for a direct connection between the accused's role in the business and the alleged offence. However, the opposite party cited Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala, where the Supreme Court allowed prosecution of directors based on detailed allegations of their involvement in the offence. 2. Prima Facie Case: The petitioners also argued that there was insufficient evidence to show their liability under Section 138 of the Act. The complaint alleged that the accused issued a dishonored cheque, leading to legal consequences. The petitioners contended that the term "refer to drawer" did not necessarily imply dishonor, citing a House of Lords judgment. However, the opposite party presented letters from banking officials clarifying that the remark indicated insufficient funds in the drawer's account. The court held that the bounced cheque and the petitioners' failure to respond adequately indicated a prima facie case under Section 138. The court found no illegality in proceeding with the trial and directing the examination of the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Decision: Ultimately, the court rejected the petitioners' application challenging the maintainability of the case and upheld the impugned order. The court found that the complaint sufficiently established the necessary elements for proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of detailed allegations and evidence to establish criminal liability in such cases, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar matters. This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key legal arguments, precedents cited, and the court's reasoning in deciding the issues raised by the petitioners regarding the maintainability and evidence in the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
