Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (12) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in company. It is not stated that who was in hold of the reins of the company to issue the cheque and whether the respondent was responsible to issue said cheque on behalf of the company or not. On the contrary, the allegations of issuance of cheque is attributed to the company alone. Thus when it is not averred in complaint that the respondent was responsible for the business of the company and has issued the cheque for and on behalf of the company the complaint against him cannot be sustained. The complaint only purports that the money was invested in the company at the instance of the respondent for return of inflated healthy sum. The complaint is silent about the role of respondent and responsibility for issuance of cheque on behalf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e revisional Court had quashed the complaint against that accused on the ground that no pleading was made against the respondent as to how he was responsible to issue the cheque. The said order of revisional Court is under challenge. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the Court of JMFC was well merited about taking of the cognizance and revisional Court has committed an error to quash the same at the threshold. It is stated that the order of revisional Court suffers with illegality since complaint was at the primary stage, therefore, the fact that who was responsible for issuing such cheque could not be decided by the revisional Court without any trial. 4. Perused the documents filed along with the petition. Perusal of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subjected to criminal process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That the respondent falls within the parameters of Section 141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases. (c) The answer to Question (c) has to be in affirmative. The question notes that the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get cover .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Sudhir Pandey and in lieu thereof N.B. Plantations has given a post dated cheque of ₹ 18000/- of date 01.09.2012. The averments of the complaint do not disclose about any specific allegation about the role played by the respondent to project that he was also instrumental for issuance of cheque. Predominately the allegations have been attributed against the company itself alone to isolation to others. Therefore, prima facie reading of the complaint do not specify the fact that the pleadings have been made to bring the case within Section 141 of the Act, 1881 which justify the issuance of process by the JMFC to one of the accused named in company. It is not stated that who was in hold of the reins of the company to issue the cheque an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates