9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the other two Accused were directors. Section 141 undoubtedly uses the expression company so as to include a firm or association of persons. The fact that the first accused, in the present case, is a partnership firm of which the remaining two Accused are partners has been missed by the High Court. The High Court was in error in quashing the criminal case against the first Respondent - Appeal allowed. - Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 655 of 2019) - - - Dated:- 5-4-2019 - Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud And Hemant Gupta, JJ. For the Appellant : Bhabhna Das and Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Advs. For the Respondents : Abhimanyu Bhandari, Akriti Chaubey, Roohina Dua, Kunwar Aditya Singh, Ejaz Maqbool, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar and Mrityunjai Singh, Advs. JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 13 June 2018 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. [ Criminal Petition No. 5301 Of 2014 ] While allowing a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [ CrPC ] instituted by the first Respondent, the High Court quashed the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he account No. 10141070007111 of complainant at HDFC Bank, Mahabubnagar on 08.02.2011 and 10.02.2011. They also assured the complainant to pay the balance amount within short time. As the Accused No. 2 is son of brother in law of complainant, he believed them and kept quite for some time. As they have committed default in payment of amounts, the complainant could not continue said work from the month of January 2011, as he had no money to pay the salaries of his employees. 6. After repeated demands for the payment of balance amount of ₹ 7,50,000 towards completed work and ₹ 1,00,000 given towards caution deposit, the Accused No. 3 issued two more cheques bearing No. 929675 and 929676 dated 30.05.2011 and 19.07.2011 respectively each for ₹ 2,00,000 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Hyderabad towards part payment of due amount and assured to pay the balance amount within short time. 7. The complainant presented said cheque bearing No. 929675 but the same was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in their bank account on 30.05.2011. The complainant informed the Accused about the return of cheque and they assured to honour both cheques on re-presentation in the month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is that, he resides in Kuwait where he is employed with the National Bank of Kuwait. Hence, he has no day to day connection with the affairs of the partnership firm. In these circumstances, learned Counsel submitted that the High Court having quashed the complaint, this Court ought not to exercise its jurisdiction Under Article 136 to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court. 9. Section 141(1) provides as follows: 1. If the person committing an offence Under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: [Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the complainant. After completing the job of data entry, the Accused issued two cheques dated 1 November 2010 and 18 December 2010 for the amount of ₹ 2,00,000 and ₹ 2,50,000 respectively. On presentation, the cheques were returned due to insufficiency of funds. It was thereafter that the first Respondent is alleges to have transferred an amount of ₹ 1,00,000 from his account on 8 February 2011 and 10 February 2011. The complaint contains the statement that the parties are related. Thereafter, two further cheques were issued by the managing partner on 30 May 2011 and 19 July 2011 each in the amount of ₹ 2,00,000. After the cheques were returned unpaid due to insufficiency of funds, the complainant is alleges to have informed the Accused and who are stated to have assured him that both the cheques would be honoured on re-presentation in the month of July 2011. 13. The submission is that the above averments are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 141 having regard to the fact that the first Accused is a partnership firm. 14. While laying down the general principles which must apply to this body of law, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Gunmal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the business and, specifically, in relation to the transactions which took place with the complainant. At every place in the averments, the Accused have been referred to in the plural sense. Besides this, the specific role of each of them in relation to the transactions arising out of the contract in question, which ultimately led to the dishonour of the cheques, has been elucidated. 16. The complaint contains a recital of the fact that the first set of cheques were returned for insufficiency of funds. It is alleged that the first Respondent transferred an amount of ₹ 1,00,000 on 8 February 2011 and 10 February 2011. The complaint also contains an averment that after the second set of cheques were dishonoured, the Accused assured the complainant that they will be honoured on re-presentation in the month of July 2011. The averments are sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 141(1). 17. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the first Accused was a company in which the other two Accused were directors. Section 141 undoubtedly uses the expression company so as to include a firm or association of persons. The fact that the first accused, in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
