TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated:- 11-4-2018 - R. Hemalatha, J. For the Petitioners : Mr.S.Baskaran for M/s Ram and Ram For the Respondent : Mr.V.Nandakumar ORDER Heard Mr.S.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Nandakumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.1090 of 2009 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet and quash the proceedings. 3. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1090 of 2009 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners/accused for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. He also pointed out that the 1st petitioner did not sign the cheques. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:- (1) If the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there are averments which bring the case within Section 141, he would issue the process. We have seen that merely being described as a director in a company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non-director can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case at the trial. This judgment was referred by the Honourable Supereme Court in Darga Ravi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 775. 6. Further, in Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs. State of Mahara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n offence will be liable for criminal action. A Director, who was not incharge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the relevant time, will not be liable for an offence under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and another reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Crl) 1113, it is held that Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer to the relevant portion of the judgment on the point in issue: 10. While analyzing Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it will be seen that it operates in cases where an offence under Section 135 is committed by a company. The key words which occur in the section as every person . There are general words and take every person connected with a company within their seep. Therefore, these words have been rightly qualified by use of the words who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, etc. What is required is that the persons who are sought to be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
