TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a's case, we set aside the impugned judgment and conviction passed by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court - Appeal allowed. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 6422 OF 2012) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 9695 OF 2012) - - - Dated:- 24-2-2015 - S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ. For the Appellant : Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sanchar Anand, Apoorv Singhal, Devendra Singh, Charu Ambwani and Prashant Kumar, Advs. For the Respondent : Charu Ambwani, Prashant Kumar, AP and J Chambers and Shailendra Singh, Advs. JUDGMENT CRL. APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 6422 OF 2012) 1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-accused against the judgment dated 20.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 404 of 2008. 2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentenced imposed on the accused-appellant for offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). 3. The Appellant is the accused where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Private Limited' (2012) 5 SCC 661], the prosecution against the Appellant was void ab-initio. 6. In Aneeta Hada's case [2012 (5) SCC 661], the Court, inter alia, held: .... 53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of the Act is concerned with the offences by the company. It makes the other persons vicariously liable for commission of an offence on the part of the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the vicarious liability gets attracted when the condition precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that as the liability is penal in nature, a strict construction of the provision would be necessitous and, in a way, the warrant. .... .... 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 averm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition No. 404 of 2008. The Appellant stands acquitted. The appeal is allowed. CRL APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 9695 OF 2012) Leave granted. 11. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 31.08.2012 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and sentence for imprisonment till rising of the Court. Compensation of ₹ 5 lakhs awarded to the complainant jointly by the accused under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for short) in default of payment of compensation to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months was also affirmed. However, the fine of ₹ 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for thirty days passed by the trial court was quashed and thereby the appeal was partly allowed. 12. As per the complainant, the accused have taken loan of ₹ 5 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of an offence on the part of the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the vicarious liability gets attracted when the condition precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that as the liability is penal in nature, a strict construction of the provision would be necessitous and, in a way, the warrant. .... .... 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. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a Director is indicted. 59. In view of our afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
