Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. MUKHERJEE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ
BHARA T K. GUPTA -Appellant;
Versus
ARUN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 1998
Decided on October 30, 1998
Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of complaint - Interpretation of Section 141 - Liability of single director or partner - Specific averment in complaint
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court quashed the proceeding based on the Magistrate's failure to record that the respondent alone was responsible for the firm's conduct of business to attract Section 141 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's order was deemed wrong as the Magistrate is only required to incorporate the substance of the accusation, not the details. The liability under Section 141 is not limited to a single director or partner, and the complaint specifically averred that the respondent runs the business of the firm.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the requirements for compliance with Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the scope of liability under Section 141 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law.
ORDER
1.Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The proceeding arising out of a complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the Act" for short) against Respondent 1 has been quashed by the High Court solely on the ground that in his order dated 28-2-1995 passed in compliance with Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate has not recorded that the petitioner (the respondent before us) alone (emphasis supplied) was responsible to or in charge of the firm for conduct of the business so as to attract the provisions of Section 141 of the Act.
3. The above order of the High Court is patently wrong: firstly, because, while complying with Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate is required to incorporate the substance of accusation - and not the details - as appearing in the complaint; secondly, because, liability under Section 141 of the Act is not limited to that of a single director of a company or a single partner of a firm; and, thirdly, because, in the complaint there is a specific averment that Respondent 1 runs the business of their firm named and styled as Mis Arun Oil Industries. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
