9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s court that it is an admitted position the petitioner is a non-Executive and independent Director, therefore, his prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by his Company, the principal accused, he cannot be prosecuted with the aid of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted to prosecute a Director of a Company for an offence punishable under section 138 N.I. Act with the aid of section 141 of the said Act, it is not sufficient to merely state that he is a Director of the Company and in-charge of the conduct of its business and there must be a specific statement as to how and what manner the concerned Director was in-charge of or was responsible to the accused-Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Act. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions also the rulings cited before this court. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the parties, in my opinion, it would be more apposite to refer what has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. -vs- Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr. (Supra) in paragraph 13 and same is quoted below:- "Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, no sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agraph 4 of the complaint as aforesaid, this court is of the opinion, there is no lack of necessary averment as required for prosecuting any Director under section 138 N.I. Act, with the aid of section 141 of the said Act in all the aforesaid criminal revisions. In the case of SMS Pharmaceutical Ltd. -vs- Neeta Bhalla reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89, the Apex Court while as laid down what should be an essential requirement to be afford for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the aid of Section 141 of the said Act. In clause (a) of the said decision, the Apex court observed as follows:- "(a) Whether for purposes of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is sufficient if the substance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
