Point of Law : Dishonoured of cheque - Conviction confirmed - Petitioner still convicted even if he issues his personal cheque in discharge of dues of company - Petitioner being signatory of bounced cheque is clearly responsible for non- payment of amount to complainant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Sarfaraz Akhtar, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Heard Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

4. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, I, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 23/2010, whereby the Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment dated 13.01.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 241/2004 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs. One Lakh to the complainant company as compensation.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument, has submitted that though the dues was against the company in which the petitioner was working, but the cheque was issued by the petitioner from his personal account and accordingly, there was no debt recoverable from the petitioner in his personal capacity. It has been submitted that in such circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned senior counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another” reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89. The learned senior counsel submits that there is a concept of vicarious liability when the cheque is issued by the company, but merely because one of the employees of the company has issued the cheque from his personal account, he cannot be said to have issued the cheque in discharge of the debt of the company.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and State

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has referred to para 5 and 6 of the complaint petition to submit that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. He has further submitted that the cheque had bounced twice. He has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State while opposing the prayer also does not dispute the fact that the company against whom the amount was due to the complainant was never made accused in the present case, but the petitioner had issued his personal cheque which had bounced.

Findings of this court

7. The case was registered on the basis of complainant filed by M/s Eastern Travels Pvt. Ltd. It has been alleged that on 09.08.2003 accused-petitioner came to the office of the complainant and induced the manager of the complainant to believe that accused-petitioner is Zonal Sales manager of another company at Hyderabad who is interested to support the business of supply of railway reservation ticket. The accused also represented that his company will make payment of the bills to be placed by the complainant within 5th to 10th of every month and issued letter dated 09.08.2003 requesting for extending credit facility. The said letter was signed by the accused-petitioner on behalf of his company as authorized signatory. The further contention is that the complainant believed the aforesaid representation of the accused and the complainant started supplying railway tickets to the accused from 11.08.03 as per requirements of the accused and the accused used to collect the bills from the complainant every month in respect of the railway tickets. On each occasion the accused assured the complainant to make payment of all the bills in one lump sum. The complainant continued supplying the railway tickets to the accused as per instruction of the accused till 18.11.03 and the tota