9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged being summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the ingredients of Section 141 were not satisfied as there were no averments against him in the complaint. Details of the Judgment: 1. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 accused the petitioner, who was Secretary of the Society, of involvement in the dishonour of cheques issued by the Society. The petitioner contended that there were no averments against him in the complaint, which is a requirement under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court's ruling in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla clarified the necessity of specific averments in a complaint under Section 138 and 141. The court emphasized that the complaint must establish a case for the issuance of process, and the accused has no right to produce evidence at that stage. 2. The judgment further discussed the nature of averments required in a criminal complaint, citing the case of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat. In that case involving a partnership firm, the court held that the primary responsibility lies with the complainant to make necessary averments to hold the accused vicariously liable. The court emphasized that there should be specific averments to establish that the accused was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business. In the absence of such averments, the summoning orders against the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the Society, were quashed as there was no presumption of his involvement without specific allegations. Conclusion: The petition challenging the summoning of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was disposed of, with the court quashing the summoning orders against the petitioner due to the absence of necessary averments in the complaint to establish his vicarious liability.
|
