TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as to how the accused were connected with the said hospital, whether they were Directors, Managing Directors etc. The Indus Hospital was not shown as an accused. The complaint would not disclose how vicarious liability could be fastened to the petitioners herein. Considering the above judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, if Indus Hospital is considered as a Company, it has to be arrayed as an accused. Without arraying it as an accused, the persons cited as A1 and A3 cannot be held liable without even stating as to how they are connected to the hospital. A perusal of the cheque would disclose that it was issued by Sri M. Madhusudhan Reddy, who was shown as A2, on behalf of Indus Hospitals. This petition is filed by only Accused Nos.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Color Doppler machine through one Mr. K. Chakravarthy, who was a freelancer as well as an Executive. The cost of the machine was ₹ 4,00,000/-, with tax of 5%, totalling ₹ 4,20,000/-. The said machine was ordered by A1 to A3 on 15.04.2013 and it was delivered and installed on 16.04.2013. A1 gave a cheque for ₹ 3.00 lakhs dated 01.05.2013 on 17.04.2013, stating that he was giving his personal cheque, as the account was not yet opened in the name of Indus Hospitals in Bank of India. On 01.05.2013, A1 to A3 asked the complainant not to present the said cheque and gave two post-dated cheques dated 04.05.2013 and 12.05.2013 for ₹ 1,50,000/- each drawn on Bank of India, Malakpet Branch. But, the first cheque was dishonour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her contacted him nor dealt with him at any point of time. The petitioners were not the drawers of the cheque and they never issued the same. As the complaint did not disclose about the alleged vicarious liability of the accused in the absence of details in the complaint that the accused was a Company or Corporation or a Legal Entity and that the other accused were accordingly concerned with the business of such Legal Entity, the provisions under Section 141 and 142 of the NI Act could not be invoked. A1 had absolutely no connection whatsoever in the affairs of Indus Hospital. The name of A3 was different and such person was not at all connected. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 138. Thus, the statutory intendment is absolutely plain. The provision makes the functionaries and the companies to be liable and that is by deeming fiction. A deeming fiction has its own signification. 53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of the Act is concerned with the offences by the company. It makes the other persons vicariously liable for commission of an offence on the part of the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the vicarious liability gets attracted when the condition precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that as the liability is penal in nature, a strict construction of the provision would be necessitous and, in a way, the warrant. 58. Applying the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies to the said cheques which are returned / dishonoured. As per Section 138 of the NI Act, the emphasis has been laid on the fact that the cheque has to be drawn by a person on the account maintained by him. He must have issued the cheque in discharge of any debt or other liability. As the petitioners are not the persons, who had drawn the cheque and they were not shown as the persons who were maintaining the account in the bank and that they had issued the subject cheques in discharge of their liability, continuation of the proceedings against them is considered as an abuse of process of law and as such liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners A1 and A3 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|