9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... romise entered between him and the petitioners 1 to 3 before the Court, petitioners owed him ₹ 15,30,000/- and that they paid cash of ₹ 2,00.000/- on 29-01-2004, and had issued cheques bearing No. 104684, dated 9-3-2003 for ₹ 1,30,000/- Nos. 104685 and 104686, dated 15-03-2003 for ₹ 6,00,000/-each, and when he presented those three cheques for payment, they were returned wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Andh LD (Crl) 803 : 2005 Cri LJ 11, S. Sultan and Co., Hyderabad v. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad, 2005 (1) Andh LD (Crl) 647 : 2005 Cri LJ 1134 (AP) and Dr. V. Balaraju v. Pashak Feeds (P) Ltd., R.R. District, 2005 (1) Andh LD (Crl) 651 : 2005 Cri LJ 1129 (AP) and contended that petitioners 2 and 3 in any event cannot be made liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or not, is a matter to be decided during the course of trial and that fact cannot be decided at this stage because it is well known that this Court while deciding a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., would not go into the defence of the accused, but would only consider the allegations in the complaint, to find out if they make out the offence alleged or not. Since the allegations in the compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt and that on that account first petitioner with authority had drawn the dishonoured cheques on behalf of all the petitioner. Since the bounced cheques, admittedly were not drawn by or on behalf of a company or firm, question of roping in petitioners 2 and 3 by talking the aid of Section 141 of the Act does not arise since there cannot be any vicarious liability for criminal acts and since it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry concern. The fact that the concern of which first petitioner is the proprietor is not made an accused, is not much of consequence because the liability of the proprietary concern and the proprietor is joint and several. So, merely because the proprietary concern is not made an accused, the proprietor who acts on its behalf is not entitled to seek relief under Section 482, Cr. P.C. So, first pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
