9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since those petitions were dismissed, the petitioners have filed the above revision petitions. 3. The only point urged in these revision petitions is that there are no required and sufficient averments in the complaints so as to attract the offence under the Act and as such, the proceedings as against the petitioners are bound to be dropped. 4. Repudiating the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the side of the respondent, it is argued that there are averments in the complaints as against the petitioners, which would attract Section 141(2) of the Act, though not there are allegations as contained in Section 141(1) of the Act. It is further contended that on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the notices and are guilty of the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act. 7. It is true that this Court held in 1999 Crl.L.J. 2693 (supra) that though these allegations may not attract Section 141(1) of the Act as there are no averments that the directors are in-charge and responsible for the conduct and affairs of the company, it may attract Section 141(2) of the Act since the averments mentioned in the complaint would cover Section 141(2) of the Act. 8. On the basis of this observation, the counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the observation made by this Court in the said decision would squarely apply to this case also and as such, the petitioners cannot claim that the proceedings against them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponsible for the dishonourment of the cheques and have failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques, despite the receipt of notice, would not suffice to hold that it would cover Section 141 of the Act. The allegations referred in the said complaint, which was dealt with by the Supreme Court is as follows:- All the accused persons are also responsible for the dishonourment of the cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act and all are liable to be punished for the offences committed under Section 138 NIA. All the accused persons have filed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques despite the legal notice which was sent by registered post. 13. When it was argued before the Supreme Court by the complainant party that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch persons shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence. 17. The wordings contained in Section 141(1) of the Act are slightly different from the wordings contained in Section 141(2) of the Act with reference to the presumption. It is mentioned under Section 141(1) of the Act that when a company has committed the offence, every person, who was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty. But under Section 141(2) of the Act, the presumption would arise against the director, manager, etc., only when it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of those pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
