Back
2000 (1) Crimes 316
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Natesha Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
versus
M/s. Klen and Marshalls of Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt. Ltd. -Respondent
Crl. Orgl. Pet. Nos. 4108 and 4109 of 1997 and 16109 to 16111, 18364 to 18366 of 1998 with Crl. M.P. Nos. 1471-72 of 1997 and 2511-13, 481012, 10021-23 and 10031-33 of 1998
Decided on 10-2-1999
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V. Raghupathi and Mr. B.S. Sundaramoorthi. Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Ilias Ali. Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is committed by Company persons who were not stated to be in - charge of and responsible to Company could be prosecuted if it was proved that offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable to neglect on their part.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 141 (2) - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by Company Petitioner the Managing Director - Director and General manager seeking quashing of proceedings on ground that there were no specific averments they were In-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of Company Persons not stated to be In - charge of and responsible to Company could be prosecuted If It was proved that offence was committed with their consent or connivance or was attributable to any neglect on their part - Complaint alleged that petitioners were responsible for failure to make payment of amount despite service of notice - It could not be said that there was no averment that offence was committed with consent of petitioners - Proceedings were not liable to be quashed. (Paras 16 to 17)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
M. Karpagannayagam, J. - J.K. Singh the petitioner in Crl. O.P. Nos. 16109 to 16111 of 1998 who is the Chairman and authorised signatory of Mid East (India) Limited. MESCO Towers. New Delhi (A1) is the second accused in C. C. Nos. 729 to 731 of 1997 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. Mrs. Rita Singh, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. Nos. 18364 to 18366 of 1998, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Mid East (India) Limited, MESCO Towers, New Delhi (A1), is the third accused in C.C. Nos. 7379, 7380 and 7378 of 1996 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Natesha Singh and R.K. Gupta, the petitioners in Crl. O.P. Nos. 4108 and 4109 of 1997, who are the Director and General Manager respectively of M/s Mid East (India) Limited, MESCO Towers, New Delhi (A1), are the fourth and fifth accused in C.C. Nos. 7379 and 7380 of 1996 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
3. Since the common question is raised in all these petitions, these could be disposed of by a common order.
4. All these petitioners including the Company are the accused in the private complaints given by the same Company, who is the respondent herein. However, some persons alone have filed petitions for quashing the proceedings in some cases, on the ground that there are no specific averments as against the petitioners with reference to their role in the conduct of the affairs of the Company, on whose behalf the cheque was issued.
5. Mrs. Rita Singh, the petitioner in some of the applications and J.K. Singh, the petitioner in other applications have not filed quashing applications in respect of those cases in which they issued cheques on behalf of the Company (A1). In other words, they have filed the applications for quashing only in the cases where the cheques were issued by somebody else on behalf of the Company. Thus, it is clear that during the relevant period they have also issued some cheques on behalf of the Company (A1).
6. But, Mr., Sundaramoorthi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, J.K. Singh and Mrs. Rita Singh, would contend that in these cases, the petitioners have not issued cheques and there is no averment that the petitioners are in - charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs and there is also no allegation against the petitioners connecting them with the alleged offence.
7. Mr. Raghupathi, the Counsel for the petitioner Natesha Singh and R.K. Gupta (A; 4 and A5) also made similar submission stating that the complaint does not reveal that the petitioners (A4 and A5) are in any way responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company and as such, the proceedings are not valid as against them.
8. In support of their contentions, both the Counsels for the petitioners would cite the decisions in Agritech Hatchering v. Valuable Steel India Ltd.1, B. Lakshmi v. M/s. Trishul Coal Services and Transporters and Others2, P.L. Lamba v. State of Rajasthan3 and Anita v. Anil K. Mehra and Others4. In these decisions, it is held that there is no allegation with reference to the role played by the accused in relation to the commission of the offence by the Company.
9. In reply to the above submissions, Mr. Ilias Ali, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant, would submit that there are allegations in the complaint with reference to the participation of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. According to him, though it is not averred in the complaint that they were in-charge and responsible for the conduct and affairs of the Company as contemplated under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is specifically mentioned that the Offence was committed by the Company with the consent and connivance of the petitioners, who are the Chairman, Managing Director, Director and General Manager, as provided in Section 141 (2) of the Act.
10. I have heard the submissions and carefully scrutinised the inherent merits of the rival co
