TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision has seen preferred by the complainant/1st respondent against the acquittal of the 1st accused-company. So, that verdict has become final. So much so, the revision petitioner Managing Director cannot be held liable as the company was acquitted, finding that no offence was committed by the company. The revision petitioner in his personal capacity did not owe any amount to the complainant/ 1st respondent and Ext.P2 cheque was issued not towards discharge of any personal liability of the revision petitioner. The liability of persons referred to in Section 141 of the N.I Act is coextensive with that of the company, firm or association of individuals, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. When it is found that the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, with regard to dishonour of Ext.P2 cheque dated 20.02.2000 issued by the revision petitioner as the Managing Director of Omnitech Information Systems Pvt. Ltd towards discharge of Rs. 10 lakh due to the 1st respondent/ complainant, from the 1st accused-company. 3. In the complaint, the company was the 1st accused, its Managing Director was the 2nd accused, and other Directors were accused Nos. 3 to 5. 4. On appearance of accused persons before the Magistrate court, particulars of offence was read over and explained, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the complainant examined PWs. 1 to 4, and marked Exts.P1 to P18 to prove his case. 5. On closure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though his substantive sentence was modified and reduced, and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 10 lakh, against which, he has come up with this revision. 8. Now this Court is called upon to verify the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 226 of 2005, which upheld the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I Act and a modified sentence was imposed. 9. Though service is complete, none appears for the 1st respondent/complainant. 10. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is impugning the judgment, mainly on the ground that, when the company in which he was the Mana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used-company returned with the endorsement addressee left . Notice to the 4th accused was also returned unserved . In spite of receipt of notice by the revision petitioner, no reply was sent, and the amount was not repaid. So the 1st respondent/complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act against the company and its Directors. Though the trial court found all the accused guilty under Section 138 of the N.I Act and convicted and sentenced them, the appellate court acquitted all the accused except the revision petitioner (A2). 13. Let us see who are all responsible, when an offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act is committed by a company. 14. Section 141 of the N.I Act reads thus; 141. Offences by companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 17. In Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd [2023 (5) KLT 844 (SC)] the Apex Court held that, vicarious liability would be attracted only when the ingredients of Section 141(1) of the N.I Act are established. 18. Paragraph 16 of the decision Siby Thomas (2023 (5) KLT 844 SC) reads thus; 16. Thus, in the light of the dictum laid down in Ashok Shewakramani's case (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on i.e. a company, firm or association of individuals. Unless and until, it is established that such juristic person commits offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act, no person referred to in Section 141 of the N.I Act can be proceeded against, summoned, prosecuted or convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act. In other words, commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act by a juristic person is an inevitable legal pre-requisite or the condition precedent to proceed against a person referred to under Section 141 of the N.I Act and to hold him guilty of the said offence. It is thus clear that a person referred to in Section 141 of the N.I Act can be prosecuted and convicted for an offence committed by another person. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
