An appellate court will not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are demonstrably perverse. Vicarious criminal liability under anti-dishonour legislation requires specific evidence of a person's responsibility for the business conduct, as mere designation or office-holding is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

AnanyaBandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal and judgment dated 18.08.2001 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta in Case No.C-930/1996, acquitted the appellant under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. The case precisely stated that the opposite party no.1 was a private limited company and the opposite parties nos.2 to 5 were the Directors and/or Principal Officers and/or Persons-in-Charge and responsible for the acts and deeds of the said company. The opposite party no.3 issued two cheques bearing no.078143 dated March 31, 1996 of Rs.15,00,000/- and cheque bearing no.078140 dated March 31, 1996 of Rs.1,19,835.62/- drawn on U.C.O Bank, New Market Branch, Calcutta for and on behalf of opposite party no.1 to discharge the liabilities of the said company respectively. The said cheques were duly deposited with Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Dalhousie Square Branch. The said cheques were eventually returned with a remark ‘Insufficient Fund” to the petitioner on April 3, 1996. On or about April 15, 1996, notice under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was issued in the names of the opposite parties at their correct address with acknowledgement due by speed-post but returned with a postal remark “Out of Calcutta”, to the sender dated April 16, 1996. The opposite parties deliberately avoided to receive the said notice. Moreover, the opposite party no.1 was a private limited company and the said company could not be “Out of Calcutta” and accordingly, the notice was duly served upon the opposite parties. Inspite of issuance of such notice, the opposite parties failed to pay the said cheque amount to the petitioner. Hence, the opposite parties had committed an offence punishable under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and examined certain documents while the defence examined one witness.

4. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. “The complainant case that the accused no. 1 is private limited company and accused no. 2 to 5 are the Directors of the Company and conducting the day to day business of the company where the accused company for discharging its liability issued two cheques to the complainant appellant herein being cheque no. 078143 for Rs.15,00000/- and another cheque no. 078140 for Rs.1,19,835.62. both the cheques were issued on 31.03.1996 signed by accused no. 3, drawn on U.C.O Bank, New Market Branch, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Court.

ii. During valid period of the cheque the complainant presented the cheque on 03.04.1996 in its Banker at Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Dalhousie Branch Calcutta 700001 but the said cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "INSUFFICIENT OF FUNDS" as per intimation from the Bank received by the complainant on 03.04.1996.

iii. As per provision of law the complainant issued demand notice to the accused persons through "speed post" with A/D on 15.04.1996 within the limitation and the said notice returned unserved with the remark "Out of Calcutta" hence returned to the sender on 16.04.1996.

iv. The complainant finding no alternative filed o