Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Binay Prasad, Son of Late Baijnath Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Cr. Rev. No. 830 of 2012 with Cr. Rev. No. 833 of 2012
Decided On : 26-07-2021
Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction under section 138 - Cr. Revision No.830 of 2012 arises out of Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2011 and Complaint Case No. 87/2006 and T.R. No. 1629/2011 - Conviction of petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- - compensation amounting to Rs. 7,19,739/- - Cheque No. 969458 dated 14.12.2005 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Ranchi. Criminal Revision No.833 of 2012 arises out of Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2011 and Complaint Case No. 86/2006 and T.R. No. 438/2011 - Conviction of petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- - compensation amounting to Rs. 7,15,164/- - Cheque No. 969457 dated 14.12.2005 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Ranchi
Fact of the Case:
The cases arise from two different loans extended by the opposite party to a partnership firm, in which the petitioner was a partner, for the purchase of tipper vehicles. The loans were settled, and the cheques issued in discharge of the dues bounced, leading to the filing of complaint cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorization letter to file Complaint Case No. 86/2006 was not exhibited and the witness was not produced, rendering the case filed without proper authorization. The court also found that the partnership firm, in which the accused was a partner, should have been made a co-accused in the complaint cases, and the failure to do so rendered the complaint against the petitioner not maintainable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authorization of the complainant's representative to file the cases and the failure to include the partnership firm as a co-accused in the complaint cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint filed without proper authorization and the failure to include the partnership firm as a co-accused rendered the complaints against the petitioner not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence of the petitioner in both cases, allowing the Criminal Revision petitions and discharging the petitioner from his liabilities under the bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the cases.
2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party -complainant in both the cases.
3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party State in Cr. Revision No. 830 of 2012.
4. Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party State in Cr. Revision No. 833 of 2012.
5. The complainant and the accused in both the cases are same persons. The appellate court judgements in both the cases are dated 29.06.2012 and have been passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Ranchi and the appeals have been dismissed. The trial court judgement in Cr. Revision No. 830 /2012 is dated 05.08.2011 and in Cr. Revision No. 833 /2012 is dated 18.08.2011 both passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. The essential details in connection with the impugned judgements are as under: -
| Criminal Revision No.830 of 2012 arises out of Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2011 and Complaint Case No. 87/2006 and T.R. No. 1629/2011. -Conviction of petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. -simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- -compensation amounting to Rs. 7,19,739/- -Cheque No. 969458 dated 14.12.2005 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Ranchi. | Criminal Revision No.833 of 2012 arises out of Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2011 and Complaint Case No. 86/2006 and T.R. No. 438/2011. -Conviction of petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. -simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- -compensation amounting to Rs. 7,15,164/- -Cheque No. 969457 dated 14.12.2005 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Ranchi. |
Arguments of the Petitioner
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the cases arise out of two different loans extended by the opposite party no. 2 to the partnership firm namely, Mehta Transport Company in which the petitioner was a partner. The loan was extended for purchase of the tipper vehicles for which an agreement of hire purchase dated 06.05.2003 in both the cases were executed by the petitioner in capacity of a partner of the said partnership firm namely Mehta Transport Company on behalf of the partnership firm. The vehicle involved are -
In Cr. Revision No. 830 of 2012 - Vehicle No. JH-02C-2103- corresponding complaint case is Complaint Case No. 87/2006
In Cr. Revision No. 833 of 2012 - Vehicle No. JH-02C-2102- corresponding complaint case is Complaint Case No. 86/2006
7. Broadly two points have been argued by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in both the cases: -
The learned counsel has also submitted that the letter of authorization was never produced along with the complaint petition, but was sought to be introduced by filing a petition for recall of the witness (P.W-1) in
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed without proper authorization and the failure to include the partnership firm as a co-accused renders the complaint not maint....
Dishonour of cheque – In absence of partnership firm being arraigned as an accused, both complaint petitions against partner of firm were not maintainable.
The court affirmed that a complaint under Section 138 requires valid authorization from a company’s board, and without it, the complaint is invalid regardless of other evidence.
A company complaint filed without proper authorization is deemed invalid, emphasizing the requirement for competence in legal representation.
Point of law: Negotiable instruments – Conviction set aside - There can be no vicarious liability unless there is a prosecution against the firm. The vicarious liability gets attracted when the condi....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the presumption of liability and the validity of the complaint filed by an authorized agent.
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
