TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was recorded and their names were deleted on 12.10.2015 and it was duly in Register of Firm under Form A. In fact after receipt of statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the first petitioner by reply dated 21.09.2017 issued reply notice and categorically stated that they were resigned from their partnership firm as early as on 01.04.2014 and as such they are not liable to pay any debts for the first accused firm. The reply was duly received by the respondent and the respondent also issued re-joinder, dated 09.10.2017. In the case on hand admittedly the petitioners were resigned from the first accused partnership firm as early as on 01.04.2014 and as such they are not liable to be punished for the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely on 20.01.2015. As per Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only the partners are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the cheques were issued by the partnership firm. Even according to the respondent, the partnership firm borrowed loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- on 20.01.2015 and even before the said borrowal, the petitioners quitted from the partnership firm and as such, they are no way response for the issuance of the alleged cheques. The cheques were issued on 15.07.2017 and 01.08.2017 for the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- each. Even at the time of borrowal of loan, the petitioners were not the partners and at the time of issuance of cheques also they are not the partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d again, it has been asserted by this Court that only the person who was at the helm of affairs of the Company and in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action [See : Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra Ors. AIR 2015 SC 675]. The law laid down by this Court is that for making a Director of a Company liable for the offences committed by the Company under Section 141 of the Act, there must be specific averments against the Director showing as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. In the above judgments, the Hon ble Supreme Court of India repeatedly held that the compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng process, supervision of the work in progress, maintenance of the accounts and stock, purchase of raw materials etc. A.5 and A.6 are looking after marketing of the products. Thus, all the accused are actively involved in the contact of the business of the firm. While being so, the complainant, who is a close relative of all A.2 and A.3, and all the accused represented to the respondent that for the purpose of improvement of business, they required additional amount to the tune of ₹ 50,00,000/- and assured that it will be repaid with interest at the rate of 1% per month. On 20.01.2015 all the accused came to the respondent's residence and received the sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- as loan and assured to repay the same. Therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Section141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners were the fourth and fifth partners. While being so, they submitted Form No.V on 12.10.2015 after their resignation from the partnership firm as on 01.04.2014 and the same was recorded and their names were deleted on 12.10.2015 and it was duly in Register of Firm under Form A. In fact after receipt of statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the first petitioner by reply dated 21.09.2017 issued reply notice and categorically stated that they were resigned from their partnership firm as early as on 01.04.2014 and as such they are not liable to pay any debts for the first accused firm. The reply was duly received by the respondent and the respondent also issued re-joinder, dated 09.10.2017. Thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
