2000 (10) TMI 984 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Single complaint for multiple causes of action
2. Compliance with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
3. Participation of Directors in the offense
4. Application of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C.

Analysis:

1. Single complaint for multiple causes of action:
The respondent initiated criminal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners for issuing 10 cheques with insufficient funds. The petitioners challenged the single complaint on the grounds of two causes of action and non-compliance with Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. However, the Court found that since the cheques gave rise to a single cause of action, the provisions of Section 219 were not applicable, and the complaint was justified.

2. Compliance with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The complaint and sworn statement did not satisfy Section 141, which requires averment that all individuals responsible for the conduct of the company were involved in the offense. As the Directors were not alleged to have participated, they were not deemed guilty under Section 138. The cognizance against petitioners 2 to 4 was quashed due to lack of active involvement.

3. Participation of Directors in the offense:
The absence of allegations of Directors' participation in the transactions led to the conclusion that they did not commit the offense under Section 138. Since the cheques were signed by the Chairman and Managing Director, cognizance against the other Directors was deemed unjustifiable and was quashed.

4. Application of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C.:
The Court considered the application of Section 219 to the case, emphasizing that the cause of action arose only after the service of notice to the accused. It was clarified that the complainant's action under Section 138 was well within time and that a single complaint against the accused was advantageous. The Court accepted that the provisions of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. were not applicable to the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion:
The petition was partially allowed, quashing the complaint and cognizance against petitioners 2 to 4 but dismissing the petition against the Chairman and Managing Director. The judgment clarified the application of various legal provisions and highlighted the importance of active participation and compliance with statutory requirements in criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.