2002 (8) TMI 833 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved:
The complaint alleged violation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by a firm and individuals. The appellant, one of the accused, challenged the complaint's validity under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Allegations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The complaint accused the firm and individuals of violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant, one of the accused, was not directly implicated in the specific act mentioned in the complaint.

Issue 2: Challenge under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint. The High Court rejected the petition, stating all accused were responsible for the firm's conduct. However, the appellant was not involved in the transaction and was not shown to be in charge of the firm's business.

Issue 3: Interpretation of "person in charge"
The Supreme Court referred to the interpretation of "person in charge" in a previous case. It clarified that liability extends to partners who are in control of the firm's business or have consented, connived, or neglected in relation to the offense.

Conclusion:
Based on legal precedents, the Court found no grounds to proceed against the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, quashing the proceedings against the appellant in the criminal case.