Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 816 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of Director u/s 141 of NI Act - petitioner had knowledge about the issuance of impugned cheques at the time of presentation or not? - case of petitioner is that at the time of borrowal of loan and at the time of issuance of cheques, the petitioner was neither Managing Director nor signatory of the impugned cheques - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, at the time of borrowal of loan on behalf of the first accused company, the post dated cheques were issued in favour of the respondents signed by the authorized signatory of the first accused company namely, the Managing Director of the first accused company and father of the petitioner herein. The date of borrowal of loan were on 13.07.2019 and 27.07.2019. However, the Managing Director of the first accused company cum authorized signatory of the first accused company, unfortunately died on 03.09.2019. Thereafter on 17.09.2019, the petitioner was inducted as one of the Director of the first accused company. Therefore, at the time of issuance of cheques, the petitioner was neither a Director of the first accused company nor authorized signatory of the cheques. Therefore, simply because a person is a Director of a company, does not make him liable under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Every person connected with the company will not fall into the ambit of the provision. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court repeatedly held that only those persons who were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. A Director, who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant point of time, will not be liable for an offence under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The provisions under Section 141 does not make all the Directors liable for the offence. The criminal liability can be fastened only on those who, at the time of commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Further, the primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the provisions in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction - Admittedly in the case of hand, the petitioner was inducted as one of the Director of the first accused company, only after the demise of his father who acted as Managing Director of the first accused company as well as authorized signatory of the first accused company. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be liable to be punished for offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, if the impugned complaint are allowed to proceed against the petitioner, it would result in gross injustice and tantamount to an abuse of process of Court. Petition allowed.
|