IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Yusuf Karim Khan, son of Mehboob Zaman Khan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 2338 of 2018
Decided On : 16-11-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act - Criminal Proceeding - Section 138, Section 141 - [VICARIOUS LIABILITY] - The court discussed the application of Section 138 and Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the requirement to aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offense. The court set aside the order taking cognizance against the petitioner, emphasizing that vicarious liability cannot be fastened if the person was not in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs at the time of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint alleged that the accused, including the petitioner, were responsible for dishonored cheques issued by a company. The petitioner argued that he had resigned before the offense and could not be held liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had resigned before the offense and was not in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs at the time of the offense. The court set aside the order taking cognizance against the petitioner, while allowing the trial to proceed against the company and other accused.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner, as a former director, could be held vicariously liable for the offense under Section 138 and Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement to aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offense. It held that vicarious liability cannot be fastened if the person was not in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs at the time of the offense.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order taking cognizance against the petitioner, allowing the trial to proceed against the company and other accused. The judgment clarified that vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could only be imposed if the accused was in charge of the company's affairs at the time of the offense.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rohitashya Roy the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.08.2016 initiated against the petitioner under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising out of Complaint Case No.C1/117/2015, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, Jharkhand.
3. The complaint case has been lodged alleging therein that the accused No.1 M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which is a public limited company, duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and nos.2,3 and 6 (petitioners) are the Directors/authorized signatories of accused no.1, and the remaining 6 accused persons are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the accused no.1 and it is on the alleged representations and requests of the accused no.2 (Alok Saxena), 3 (M.V.Thomas) and 6(petitioner) for and on behalf of the accused no.1, that the complainant had given Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs) only as inter-corporate deposit (loan) vide cheque No.083092 dated 05.03.2012 drawn on IDBI Bank for a period of 120 days and accordingly accused no.3 (M.V.Thomas) had executed a demand promissory note. The complainant has further alleged that on the due date, M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals (accused no.1) had issued a cheque no.030233 for Rs.25,00,000/- towards the repayment of the inter-corporate deposit and cheque no.030232 towards the remittances of interest on the deposit amounting to Rs.2,08,695 both dated 30.09.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nariman Point Branch, jointly signed by accused no.2 (Alok Saxena), 3 (M.V.Thomas) respectively totaling to an amount of Rs.27,08,695/- with a view to clear the legally enforceable liability towards the complainant. However, when the aforesaid cheques in question were deposited for payment by the complainant on 20.12.2014, the said cheques were returned with an endorsement of dishonour by the concerned bank with the remark ‘account closed’. Information to this effect was received by the complainant on 22.12.2014 from their banker ICICI bank with the dishonoured cheque, and return memo. The complainant further claims to have sent a legal notice through its Advocate, Shri Pabitra Kumar Ray, on 01.01.2015 to the petitioner along with the other accused persons, whereby the accused were requested to make payment of the amount covered by the above two dishonoured cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice is said to have been received by the accused persons on 05.01.2015 however, it has been averred that inspite of the service of said notice, the accused did not make payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques to the complainant and subsequently the present complaint has been lodged by the O.P.No.2 against the petitioner and 9 others.
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was one of the Director of the company namely, M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. which is accused no.1. He submits that a cheque no.030233 for Rs.25,00,000/- towards the repayment of the inter-corporate deposit and cheque no.030232 towards the remittances of interest on the deposit amounting to Rs.2,08,695 both dated 30.09.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank, Nariman Point Branch, jointly signed by accused no.2 (Alok Saxena),3 (M.V.Thomas) respectively totaliing to an amount of Rs.27,08,695/- was issued. The said cheque was bounced pursuant thereto, the complaint has been filed. He submits that the cheque was issued on 30.09.2014, this petitioner has already resigned on 27.10.2014 which has been accepted on 14.11.2014 by annexure-5 series. He submits that the cheque was dishonoured on 20.12.201
Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. v. Anu Mehta & analogous cases
Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. v. A. Chinnaswami
Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on the role played by a person in the affairs of the company at the time of the offence, not just on designation.
Vicarious liability of directors under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is contingent on their position at the time of the offense, and procedural irregularities in taking cogni....
Specific averments regarding a director's responsibility for a company's conduct are essential for establishing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Non-executive directors are not automatically liable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and specific averments are required to establish vicarious liability.
Specific averments regarding a director's responsibility for a company's conduct are essential for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A Company Secretary, who is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and is not responsible for the conduct of its business, cannot be held criminally liable for a dishonored cheque issu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.