TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otiable Instruments Act now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta. In all these cases the cheques issued by the company on different dates were dishonored on the grounds of ACCOUNT CLOSED . In fact as the Petitioner was in no way connected with the day to day affairs and management of the company at the time of issuing those cheques he was not liable in any way for prosecution as alleged in the petition of complaint on the basis of which the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the learned Transferee Magistrate for disposal of the same. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in the petitions of complaint in respect of the aforesaid four cases there is no specific mention of the individual role of the Petitioner in the alleged dishonor of the cheques and therefore, he is not vicariously liable for the misdeeds of the company. The company being accused No. 1 may be prosecuted for the alleged offence and the proceeding against the Petitioner in respect of all these cases may be quashed. The learned lawyer for the Petitioner has referred to and relied upon the principles la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused company. It is further alleged that in the discharge of their liabilities the accused persons issued cheques on different dates which were returned with the remarks of the bank as ACCOUNT CLOSED , the details of which are as under: Case No. C/5689/2009 Date of issue of the cheque 07.07.2008 Name of Drawer Nil Name of the Drawee Bank Axis Bank Limited Cheque No. 144428 Amount Rs. 50,00,000/- Presented before (Bank) State Bank of Hyderabad, Park Street Branch. Date of presentation Nil Date of dishonour 05.01.2009 Remarks of the Bank ACCOUNT CLOSED Case No. C/5690/2009 Date of issue of the cheque 07.07.2008 Name of Drawer Nil Name of the Drawee Bank Axis Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present Petitioner Director is almost identical in all the four petitions of complaint. For the purpose of considering merit of such complaint relevant portion of the complaint being C/5688/2009 by way of illustration is quoted below by way of illustration: 3. That the accused No. 1 is the company and accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the Directors of the accused No. 1, having its registered office at Carritt House , 9, R. N. Mukherjee Road, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata - 700001. 4. That the complainant company on coming into the representation of the accused company, made a corporate deposit with the accused company for a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only) for a period of 91 days and in discharge of their liabilities the said company refunded a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) and rest amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) was redeposited for a further period of 91 days with the accused company. 5. That in discharge of the said liabilities the accused persons issued a cheque bearing No. 144426 dated 07-07-2008 for Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only) each drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700071 in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sabitha Ramamurthy -Vs.- RBS Channabasavaradhya, reported in 2006 (10) SCC 581. It is observed therein that it is not necessary for the complainant to specifically reproduce the wordings of the Section but what is required is a clear statement of fact so as to enable the Court to arrive at a prima facie opinion that the accused are vicariously liable. Section 141 raises a legal fiction. By reason of the said provision, a person although is not personally liable for commission of such an offence would be vicariously liable. Such vicarious liability can be inferred so far as a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is concerned only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint petition, are made so as to make the accused therein vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. In the case of Saroj Kumar Poddar -Vs.- State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2007 (3) SCC 693 also it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if there is no averment in the complainant petition as to how and in what manner the Appellant was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
