TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of the company. More the reason that in the complaint filed before the Trial Court the company had already been impleaded as one of the respondents. The only part left is that the name of Mr.Vijay Mallya as Chairman and Managing Director of the company was not added in the original complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Adding the name of Mr.Vijay Mallya during the proceedings brought forth before the Court below that he was the Chairman and Managing Director of the company which is guilty for dishonouring the cheques in question, would be covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and cannot be termed as abuse to the process of law as envisaged in Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Sections 406, 415 and 420 of the IPC against the accused persons, namely, M/s Kingfisher Airlines Limited, Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal (Chief Executive Officer), Mr.A. Raghunathan (Chief Financial Officer), Mr.Inder Singh (Authorized Signatory) and Mr.G. Visweswaran (Authorized Signatory). The Court below had taken the cognizance on 22.06.2012. The complainant had adduced presummoning evidence. Summons against the above accused persons were issued on 22.06.2012. On 12.08.2015, notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused persons. 3. During the pendency of the complaints, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant for summoning the petitioner as an accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther argued that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant was barred by limitation as it was moved after 18 months of issuance of legal notice. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent argued that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Kingfisher Airlines and thus was fully responsible for the day to day affairs of the company and thus was liable to be prosecuted. It was further argued that as per Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, every person who at the time of commission of offence was the incharge or was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against. Initially due to inad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witness is sufficient to term it as an evidence , as mentioned in Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon accused. In the present case, it is matter of record that the pre-summoning evidence by the witness of the complainant was tendered by way of affidavit. Tendering of evidence by way of affidavit was the examination in chief of the witness and as the accused persons were not summoned till then, there was no question of any crossexamination of said witness. Adducing evidence during presummoning evidence clearly covers the case of the complainant for summoning the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 10. The other contention on behalf of the petitioner is that his name was not mentioned in the complaint, therefore, he could not ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to Section 138, the notice of demand has to be made within 30 days of the dishonour of cheque and the third proviso gives 15 days time to the drawer to make the payment of the amount and escape the penal consequences. Under clause (a) of Section 142, the complaint must be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under the third proviso to Section 138. Thus a complaint can be filed within the aggregate period of seventy five days from the dishonour, by which time a complainant can gather requisite information as regards names and other details as to who were in charge of and how they were responsible for the affairs of the Company. But if we accept the logic that has weighed with the High Court in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al action. The liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the Chairman and Managing Director of Kingfisher Airlines Limited and thus was the incharge and fully responsible for the day to day business of the said company. It is also not in dispute that the cheques in question were issued by the said company and the petitioner being its Chairman and Managing Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Therefore, mere nonmentioning of the name of the petitioner in the complaint cannot absolve him of the responsibility of the company which issued the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
