IMPORTANT POINT
A trust is considered an 'association of individuals' under Section 141 of the N.I. Act, making its office-bearers vicariously liable for offenses. However, the prosecution against individuals is invalidated if the trust, as the principal offender, is not included in the complaint.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Both the applications arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara dtd. 18/7/2019 and therefore, the same are being disposed of by common judgment. The applicant in Criminal Application No.839/2019 is accused No.2 in the complaint and the applicant in Criminal Application No.898/2019 is the accused No.3 in the complaint. The non-applicants No.1(1) to 1(6) in both the applications are the legal heirs of the deceased-complainant in the complaint filed by him under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short). The learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, by the impugned judgment and order, dismissed the revision applications filed by the applicants and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, rejecting the applications made by the applicants/accused for their discharge from the complaint.

2. The facts relevant for deciding these applications are as follows: In this judgment the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The deceased-complainant filed complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act initially against 10 accused. Accused No.1 is the Trust. The remaining accused from accused Nos.2 to 10 are either the Trustees, Directors or Office- bearers of the Trust. According to the complainant, accused No.2 is the President of the Trust. Accused No.3 is the Secretary of the Trust. It is stated that accused No.3 was well acquainted with the complainant. The Trust required money for construction of the school building. The accused No.3, therefore, made a demand of Rs.10,00,000.00. The deceased-complainant considering his relations, paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 as a hand loan to accused No.3. The complainant made a demand of money. The accused No.3 instead of repaying the amount assured the complainant that as and when there is a vacancy in school, his daughter Sangeeta would be given an appointment as a teacher. It is stated that amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 was not returned. According to the deceased-complainant, the transaction was with the consent of accused Nos.2, 4 to 10. It is stated that instead of repaying Rs.10,00,000.00, the accused No.3 issued a cheque bearing No.006903 dtd. 6/12/2014 for Rs.5,00,000.00, drawn on his account maintained with Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, Main Branch, Amravati. The accused persons assured him that the cheque would be honoured. On presentation of the cheque, the deceased-complainant was informed that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that there was no sufficient amount in the account to honour the cheque. The deceased-complainant, therefore, issued a notice to the accused Nos.2 to 10. Despite receipt of the notice, they did not pay the amount. He, therefore, filed complaint against the Trust as an accused No.1 and the other Office-bearers as the accused Nos.2 to 10. The learned Magistrate, on conducting the necessary enquiry, was pleased to take cognizance and issued process against the accused Nos.1 to 10 for commission of the offence under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act.

3. The accused Nos.2 and 3 appeared before the learned Magistrate. The complaint was filed in the year 2016. On 6 th December, 2017, the complainant made an application and sought permission to delete the names of the accused Nos.1, 4 to 10 with a consequential amendment. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, by order dtd. 6/12/2017, allowed the application. The learned Magistrate further noted that the complaint would, therefore, proceed against the accused Nos.2 and 3 (present applicants).

4. The accused Nos.2 and 3 thereafter made an application for their discharge by pleading number of grounds. The complainant opposed the said application. In the reply, it was categorically stated that the accused No.3 had issued the cheque on behalf of the Trust. Therefore, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are equally lia