9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the determination, which has been made by the judgement dated 22nd April 2022, for all practical purposes would be treated as to be a drawer. This Court is of the considered view, that when the principal proceedings was itself under Section 138, to be read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and particularly, when the issue about his status as being a Director was not under challenge or put to determination, when the summoning order was issued by the proceeding where the complaint case, as it was drawn after the judgement of conviction, the applicant, for all practical purposes would be held to be a drawer to attract the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Conclusion - The applicant, for all practi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted and was directed to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, and a penalty of Rs. 30,10,000/ - was imposed upon him. 3. The said judgement was put to challenge by the present applicant in an individual capacity, yet again as a Director of the aforesaid company, referred to herein above. The Appeal, against the judgement of conviction is still presently pending consideration. 4. It is at the stage when the Appeal was being considered by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar being Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2022, Ashok Kumar Vs. Ravi Prakash and Another, the learned appellate Court, had exercised its powers under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently, has issued a direction for depositing of 20 perc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant in his individual capacity, though admittedly when he has functioned in the capacity of being a Director of the company, holding 5 percent shares of the Company, he would be deemed to be a drawer, and the logic behind is that if the principal proceedings are taken into consideration, it was drawn by the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2, herein under Section 138, to be read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. In that eventuality, when the proceedings itself was under Section 138; to be read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that when the applicant was made conscious of his status, in the company for the purposes of initiation of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a company - in other words when the drawer of the cheque happens to be a company. Relevant portion of Section 141 reads as follows:- 141. Offences by companies. (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: 11. If para 20, of the aforesaid judgment is taken into consideration, when the Hon ble Apex Court was considering the said case, it was in the light of interpretation which has been given to Section 141 of the Negot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court, as reported in 2012 (4) JT 489, Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels Tours Pvt. Ltd. 16. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, that if para 14 of the said judgement is taken into consideration, it has drawn a distinction, that for the purposes of determining, as to who would be the actual drawer, it has been held that it would be a person, in the Company, who is in the helm of affairs of it, and since here, the authorised signatory was the present applicant, who was simultaneously holding 5 percent share in the company, for all practical purposes, he would be dealt with to be a drawer, as per the observations made in para 14 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder : - 14. The main part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorised signatory of a company becomes a drawer as he has been authorised to do so in respect of the account maintained by the company. 17. Secondly, this judgment as it has been relied by the opposite party, in the context of determining, as to who would be the actual drawer as defined under Section 7 of the Act, since the same being a judgement rendered by a larger Bench of the Hon ble Apex Court, will have a binding precedent in comparison to the judgement relied by the applicant in the matters of N. Harihara Krishnan (supra). 18. In that eventuality, the interpretation given to Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be faulted off, for the reason being that (i) The applicant s status is that of a Director of the Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
