Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH, J
Vinode V. Lukas/o. Late V.D. Luka – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner is the sixth accused in C.C.No.161/2012 and C.C.No.148/2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, and the seventh accused in C.C.No.1477/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari. The offence alleged against the petitioner in C.C.No.161/2012 are under Sections 403, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 I.P.C and that of in C.C.No.148/2013 are under Sections 403 and 420 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C and also under Sections 2(c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The offence alleged in C.C.No.1477/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary are under Sections 409, 418, 420, 120(A) and 120(B) read with Section 34 I.P.C and Sections 2(c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. In C.C.No.148/2013, there are altogether nine accused, and in the other two cases, there are eight accused.
2. The prosecution case is that, with the common intention to commit cheating, the accused had conspired together and gave the false promise to the depositors that if they invest in the partnership firm by name ‘L
An employee cannot be held criminally liable for a firm's offenses without evidence of their direct involvement or responsibility in the conduct of business.
The judgment established the principle that for criminal liability of an officer of a company, there must be sufficient evidence of their active role in the transaction, coupled with criminal intent,....
To establish liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complaint must specifically allege that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offence.
Point of Law : Escrow agreement – Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating - Proceedings quashed - Without knowing actual role of petitioners and in what manner they have participated in affairs of comp....
Advance payments for sale agreements not entrustment for breach of trust; cheating needs dishonest intent at inception; nominee directors not vicariously liable without personal role; proceedings qua....
Independent Directors - In case of Director or an officer of company, who signed cheque on behalf of company, there is no need to make a specific averment that, he was in charge of and was responsibl....
A partner is liable under S.138 of the NI Act only if proven responsible for the firm's conduct, as clarified in prior judgments.
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
