TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k India Private Limited. Though, the designation of the authorized signatory or the person who has drawn this cheque on behalf of company is not reflected in the disputed cheque, however, the fact remains that cheque has been drawn on behalf of the company. Having noticed the aforesaid fact, no error can be found with the approach of the learned Magistrate in applying provision of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue of maintaining the prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act without arraigning a company as a party accused has been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS TOURS (P.) LTD. [ 2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that we arrive at the ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass Beads to the market and respondent original accused has purchased Mirror Glass Beads from the applicant. It is contended in the complaint that in the year 2013 the respondent original accused had come to the factory of the applicant for business transaction and decided to place orders for goods, for which, payment was made by the respondent. It is further contended in the complaint that the respondents original accused purchased the goods amounting to Rs.26,53,613/- from the applicant and payment towards the same was also made by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents- original accused had purchased the goods amounting to Rs.28,84,392/- from the applicant within one month and twelve days after the commencement of new account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had, therefore, approached the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta by lodging complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No11068 of 2016. 4. After recording verification of the original complainant, the learned Magistrate has issued summons upon the respondent accused, which was duly served. The respondent had appeared before the learned Magistrate and their pleas were recorded vide wherein he had pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial was conducted by the learned Magistrate. The oral as well as documentary evidence have been led by the original complainant. The complainant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve to appeal and had urged to re-examine the issue at the final hearing stage of the appeal. 6. Having noticed the case of the complainant and having perused the impugned order, the only question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the learned Magistrate committed any error in dismissing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the facts of the present case. Learned Magistrate upon close examination of the averments made in the complaint as well as upon evaluation of the evidence of the original complainant, who is the authorized officer of the original complainant, has arrived at a finding that the transaction has taken place with company viz. Status Seramik India Private Limited. The respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: [Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada (supra) is overruled with the qualifier as stated in paragraph 51. The decision in Modi Distilleries (supra) has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove. 7. In light of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the view that no arguable case is made out for reconsideration by admitting the appeal. Hence, present application seeking leave to appeal is hereby refused. Thus, present application stands rejected. Order in Criminal Appeal No(F).21641 of 2023 In view of rejection of the leave to appeal, present Criminal Appeal stands rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
