The arraigning of a company as an accused for an offence under the N.I.Act is imperative for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - This Application is directed against the Complaint No.206 Dated 29.3.2005 filed on behalf of the Respondent against the Petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "N.I.Act"), as also the Summoning Order passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh on 16.9.2005. The impugned Summoning Order as well as all the consequential proceedings in the Ld. Trial Court are sought to be challenged in view of the fact that the complaint was made against the Petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director of 'Sadhana Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd.' without impleading the Company itself as an accused.

2. It is the contention of Petitioner that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in ' Aneeta Hada vs. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.' 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 854, arraigning of a Company as an accused for an offence under the N.I.Act is imperative, and where the complainant simply seeks prosecution of the Director without arraying the Company as an accused, such prosecution becomes liable to be quashed. The Orders of the High Court whereby the prayer for quashing the complaint proceedings in such situation were set aside, and the proceedings therefore, quashed by the Apex Court, which held that in the absence of the Company itself being arraigned as an accused, prosecution of the Director alone was not permissible, and the earlier decision in this regard in the case of ' Anil Hada vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd.' 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1 , wherein it had been held that in a complaint under sections 138 and 141 of the N.I.Act, where the disputed (dishonoured) cheque was issued by the Company, for the purpose of prosecution of its Directors, it was not necessary that the Company should also be prosecuted, was overruled by the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada's case (supra) by observing inter-alia -

"43. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh (supra) which is a three Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal (supra) does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada (supra) is overruled with the qualifier as stated in paragraph 37. The decision in Modi Distilleries (supra) has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove."

45. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 838 of 2008 and 842 of 2008 are allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Act are quashed."

3. Ld. counsel for Petitioner has further cited the decision of Apex Court in Ajit Balse vs. Capt. Ranga Karkere' 2015 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 369 , wherein it was observed interalia -

"9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the judgment in Aneeta Hada's case cannot be made applicable retrospectively in respect of cases where the conviction took place much prior to the judgment. However, on such ground the relief cannot be denied to the accused. The decision in Aneeta Hada's case may be prospective but that will be applicable to all the pending cases including the trial, appeal or revision or special leave petition/appeal pending before this court.

17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while accepting that Adiwasi Machua Samiti, Sirsida on whose behalf cheque was issued was not impleaded as accused before the trial court, contended that judgment in Aneeta Hada's case cannot be made applicable retrospectively in respect of cases where the conviction took place much prior to the judgment. However, such objection cannot be raised in the present case. Thou