9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct of its affairs. That he is so would find support from the fact that he is the signatory of the cheque. However, in the absence of arraying the Trust/College, the question of vicarious liability of petitioner does not arise. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgments of Courts below shall stand set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of all Charges. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to petitioner. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. - Decided in favor of petitioner. - CRL.R.C.No.953 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - Mr. C.T.SELVAM, J. For The Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan For The Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj ORDER This Criminal Revision arises against concurrent judgments of Courts bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs S.I. Against the conviction, petitioner moved C.A.No.101 of 2007 before learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Cuddalore, which came to be dismissed under judgment dated 13.05.2011. There against this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 6. The complaint of Respondent begins with informing: 'Petitioner, who is a close relative of respondent, is the founder of a trust viz., 'Krishna Educational Trust' and he started a Self Financing Engineering College by name 'Sri Krishna Engineering College' at Ramavaram, Chennai, under the said trust. Towards developing the said College, petitioner had borrowed a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- from respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of arraying the Trust/College, the question of vicarious liability of petitioner does not arise. 8. This Court in Abraham Memorial Educational Trust and others v. C.Suresh Babu [2012 (2) MWN (Cr.) (DCC) 161 (Mad.)] held that a Trust would answer to the name of 'Company' as defined in proviso to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While so, offences of dishonour of cheque would be that committed by the juridical person, the Trust. The decision in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels Tours (P) Ltd., ((2012) 5 SCC 661) informs that impleading the company as one of the accused is a mandatory requirement and prosecution of the Director or authorised signatory of cheque without arraying the company as an acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
