TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. Application allowed. - Application U/S 482 No. - 1726 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2020 - Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. For the Applicant : Amit Daga For the Opposite Party : G.A.,Pankaj Bharti ORDER SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief: quashing the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Complaint Case No.152/9 of 2013, Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Devendra Kumar Garg and order dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk of Patiala Court Road, Muzaffarnagar for encashment however, the same was returned by the bankers of the accused applicant with an endorsement Exceeds Arrangement. It was further alleged that complainant sent one registered legal demand notice to the applicant on 29.12.2012 through registered post however, when the amount was not paid, the aforesaid complaint was filed. (ii) On the basis of the complaint as well as other materials on record, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and called the complainant to record his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The complainant filed the statement by way of an affidavit. On the basis of materials available on record, the learned A.C.J.M. Court No.II, Muzaffarnagar took cognizance by order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque in question had been issued by the applicant in capacity of the director of Ravi Organics Limited. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws. I. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 89. II. Yogendra Kumar Khullar @ Bittoo Vs. State of U.P. and another 2012 (79) ACC 789. III. Anita Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 661. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant argued that non-bailable warrant has been issued in the matter. Applicant is authorized signatory hence complaint can go on. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... father Travels and Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 SCC 661 . He further relied on paragraph nos.58 and 59 of the said judgment. 58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words as well as the company appearing in the section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arge of or 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. 13. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused. 14. We, accordingly, are of the view that the High Court was in erorr in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny was not arraigned as an accused. Present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Aneeta Hada (supra) and Himanshu (supra). 10. In view of the above discussions, this application is allowed and the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Complaint Case No.152/9 of 2013, Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Devendra Kumar Garg and order dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.10, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No.290 of 2013, 'Devendra Kumar Garg Vs. Pawan Kumar Goel , as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.152/9 of 2013, 'Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Devendra Kumar Garg' under Section 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
