1948 (8) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... current account with the bank and had issued a cheque on the bank for Rs. 5,620 and odd for payment to the Bengal Textile Association. The textile authorities sent back the cheque as it was dishonoured and the complainant had to pay cash. He then went to Sunil Kumar Banerjee and told him about this and Sunil Banerjee said that it was necessary always for the complainant to have a cash balance of Rs. 200 in the bank and that as there had not been Rs. 5,820 and odd in the bank to his credit the cheque had been dishonoured. He asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 200 more and said that if this were done, the cheque would be honoured. The complainant deposited the sum of Rs. 200 on 17th December, 1946, and he also deposited the cheque in the ba .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it was contended that the evidence does not disclose an offence of cheating. As regards the ground that the evidence does not disclose an offence of cheating I am of opinion that it cannot be sustained at this stage. There is evidence on the record of the representation made by the accused that the cheque would be honoured on the deposit of the sum of Rs. 200 by the complainant. There is also evidence that at the time when the statement was made by the accused to the complainant the bank was already in liquidation and it was not possible for the cheque to be honoured. These facts are sufficient to entitle the Court to draw up a charge. I am not, however, in any way suggesting that the offence has been proved. That will have to be decided a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion. This fact may render the bank civilly liable but I cannot see how it can be said that these proceedings are against the bank itself. I do not see how a bank can be charged with cheating. The bank is a person, but it is a juridical person and not an actual person. The bank is such that it cannot be said to have mens rea requisite for the offence of cheating. The bank as such cannot be punished for cheating because it has no physical body. The proceedings were, therefore, not against the bank but against the petitioner as manager of the bank. That being so, section 171 of the Companies Act does not apply. In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the progress of the case and I, therefore, discharge this rule.
Case la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X