9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1761 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability u/s 141 of NI Act - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Apex Court in Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels Tours Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT has held that for the offence under Section 138 of the Act committed by a company, the company as well as every person in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of the offence shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the provisions of Section 138 along with Section 141 of the Act which deals with the offence committed by a company. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraying of a company as an accused is imperative. According to the complaint itself, the cheque was issued for Pawan Hardware Store, Sandeep talkies,near Court Road, Civil Lines, Muzaffar Nagar by the Director, Devendra Kumar Garg- petitioner. It is not averred in the compliant that Devendra Kumar Garg was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of the offence and hence he will not be liable for criminal action. It may be noted that the firm named as Ravi Organics Ltd., Nai Mandi,Muzaffar Nagar, who was the principal accused, has not been made party in the complaint as stated above and side by side the necessary averment required to be made in the complaint satisfying the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are also lacking to maintain prosecution. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to summoning order in a criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act based on the liability of a company and its directors. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the summoning order in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, arguing that the company was not made a party as an accused, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfathere Travels and Tours Private Limited. The petitioner contended that necessary averments under Section 141 of the Act were not made in the complaint, citing precedents like Yogendra Kumar Khullar @ Bittoo Vs. State of U.P. & Another. The petitioner argued that vicarious liability should only apply to individuals in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense, as emphasized in Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd. and S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & another. The respondent argued that the petitioner was liable for the bounced cheque issued to them, and the summoning order was justified based on the evidence. The court examined the provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act, emphasizing that criminal liability extends to individuals responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense. The court clarified that for an offense under Section 138 by a company, Section 141 is crucial, holding all individuals in charge of the company's business accountable. The court highlighted the need for specific averments in the complaint to establish liability under Section 141. In the current case, the court found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege the petitioner's role as in charge of the company's business at the time of the offense. The complaint failed to make the necessary averments required by Section 141 of the Act, leading to a lack of legal basis for prosecution. Consequently, the court deemed the complaint and related proceedings an abuse of the court process and ordered their quashing. The court's decision was based on the absence of essential averments and failure to establish the liability of the petitioner as required by law. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the summoning order, and dismissed the criminal revision, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the legal requirements for establishing liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The court's decision focused on the legal principles governing vicarious liability for offenses committed by companies and the necessity of specific averments in complaints to maintain prosecution under the Act.
|
