9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01991-2022 CRM-M-16830-2023 Criminal Complaint No.266 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001994-2022 CRM-M-16833-2023 Criminal Complaint No.269 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001997-2022 CRM-M-16848-2023 Criminal Complaint No.270 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001998-2022 CRM-M-16849-2023 Criminal Complaint No.261 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001999-2022 CRM-M-16863-2023 Criminal Complaint No.264 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001992-2022 CRM-M-16888-2023 Criminal Complaint No.267 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001995-2022 CRM-M-16891-2023 Criminal Complaint No.257 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001985-2022 CRM-M-27482-2023 Criminal Complaint No.211 of 2022 filed on 12.07.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001677-2022 CRM-M-27940-2023 Criminal Complaint No.181 of 2022 filed on 05.07.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001499-2022 CRM-M-27481-2023 Criminal Complaint No.181 of 2022 filed on 15.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001497-2022 CRM-M-28162-2023 Criminal Complaint No.184 of 2022 filed on 05.07.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001496-2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Complaint No.214 of 2022 filed on 12.07.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001674-2022 1. This order shall dispose of all the above mentioned petitions, as per the details of criminal complaint mentioned as above. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from CRM-M-16624-2023. 2. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons in the complaint captioned above, the accused has come up before this Court under section 482 CrPC for its quashing, submitting that the petitioner had no role in the firm's business, the other partner was the signatory of the cheque and was also the sole proprietor of the business, which fact is proved from the complaint, resultantly, the petitioner could not have been summoned for the alleged offense, which he never committed. 3. During the course of the business, certain cheques were handed over to the complainant, including the cheque in question, which bounced, leading to the issuance of notice and subsequently filing of the complaint Annexure P-1. The complainant filed the complaint against all the accused, including the petitioner and vide order dated 28.02.2023, bailable warrants were issued. The trial court summoned all the accused, including the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t explictly clear that the petitioner was neither the signatory nor the proprietor of the firm which issued two cheques in question, as has been specifically mentioned in para 5 of the complaint supra. 10. Before anyone can be summoned to face a criminal trial, the Magistrate must search for primafacie legally admissible evidence, which attributes some role that makes out a penal offense. 11. In the present case, the complainant is silent about the petitioner's role and there is no evidence pointing out the petitioner's criminal liability with the cheque. 12. In Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [9]. Three categories of persons can be discerned from the said provision [141 NIA] who are brought within the purview of the penal liability through the legal fiction envisaged in the Section. They are: (1) The company which committed the offence, (2) Everyone who was in charge of and was responsible for the business of the company, (3) any other person who is a director or a manager or a secretary or officer of the company, with whose connivance or due to whose neglect the company has committed the offence. [10]. Normally an offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecution of the other persons who fall within the second and the third categories mentioned above. No doubt a finding that the offence was committed by the company is sine qua non for convicting those other persons. But if a company is not prosecuted due to any legal snag or otherwise, the other prosecuted persons cannot, on that score alone, escape from the penal liability created through the legal fiction envisaged in Section 141 of the Act. 13. In Smt. Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers & Chem. Travancore Ltd., (2002) 7 SCC 655, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [5]. In short the partner of a firm is liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the firm if he was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the partner concerned. [6]. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in KPG Nayar v. Jindal Menthol Ltd., 2000(6) Scale 578 and Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., JT 1999(9) SC 223 : 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 1 (SC). Examined in the light of these decisions and the law enunciated, we find no ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
