9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Supreme Court that for maintaining a prosecution under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative only within the other categories of offenders can be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. In the present case, the complainant and the petitioner disputed the fact whether the petitioner borrowed the loan amount for AMD Housing Developer or for petitioner s personal capacity and also, the petitioner disputed the fact that by himself, the disputed cheque was given as a security purpose only and the same was misused by the complainant. Therefore, whether the disputed cheque was given as security or not, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annum. Till 15.07.2018, the accused person repaid a sum of Rs.21,25,000/- and he has to pay the balance amount i.e., Rs.9,46,290/-. Thereafter, he had paid only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, on 11.11.2019 for interest. For the balance amount i.e., Rs.15,58,999/-, the accused person gave a cheque drawn on the Kumbakonam Branch of the State Bank of India, dated 30.06.2021 with the cheque No.140660. The complainant put it for collection on 30.06.2021 at the Kumbakonam Branch of State Bank of India, which was returned as 'insufficient funds'. Hence a demand notice was issued within a period of fifteen days and the accused person also received the same and sent a reply notice through his Advocate with false allegation. Hence the private compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the said amount as his personal loan not as a partner to the AMD Housing Developer and further in his reply notice, he had not raised any objection for not impleading the AMD Housing Developer as an accused and he did not deny his borrowing of personal loan. Under these circumstances, the petitioner borrowed the loan in his personal capacity. Therefore, the AMD Housing Developer need not to be implicated in the criminal complaint. Apart from this, he further submitted that for non-impleading the partnership firm in the complaint, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.498 of 2021 need not to be quashed. He may be permitted to implead the partnership firm i.e., AMD Housing Developer as an accused. To support his argument, he relied upon the followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rowed by AMD Housing Developers and the cheque was issued by AMD Housing Developer. It has to be noted that the petitioner had not raised the question of law that the prosecution of the petitioner as a partner without implicating the partnership firm is not maintainable, without making the firm as an accused in his affidavit. There is no dispute with regard to the legal principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for maintaining a prosecution under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative only within the other categories of offenders can be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. 9.In the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
