2011 Supreme(UK) 69
2011 (1) N.C.C. 542
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha
Criminal Appeal Nos. 360-377 of 2011
HARSHENDRA KUMAR D. – Appellant
Versus
REBATILATA KOLEY ETC. – Respondents
Decided on : 08.02.2011
Subject
Criminal Law - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT
Act Referred
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.141, S.138, S.141(1)
Headnote
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Secs. 138, 141(1) — Offence committed by company — Vicarious liability for — A director who had resigned and whose resignation had been accepted and who had ceased to have anything with the affairs of the company before the offence had been committed — Could not be held vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company after he had ceased to be a director of the company. (Paras 15 to 18)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 397, 401, 482 — Scope of Power of High Court under Sec. 482 and that of revisional Court in revision under fairly settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction u/S 482 or revisional jurisdiction u/S 397 of the Criminal Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations — However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents – which are beyond suspicion or doubt – placed by accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial court — In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process — The High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage.
(Paras 20, 21 & 22)
¼v½ ijkdE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881] /kkjk 138] 141 & ds vUrxZr dkuwuh fLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa LFkkfir fl)kUrksa dk fopkj.k & (i) izkjfEHkd mRrjnkf;Ro f'kdk;rdrkZ dk gS fd og f'kdk;rh nkos esa os vko';d rF; ntZ djs tks fd dkuwu esa visf{kr gSa rkfd vfHk;qDr dks vijkf/kd mRrjnkf;Ro ds okLrs mRrjnk;h ekuk tk lds & ,slh dksbZ dYiuk ugha dh tk ldrh fd izR;sd funs'kd O;ogkj ds ckjs esa tkurk gS * (ii) /kkjk 141 NIA vijk/k ds okLrs lHkh funs'kdksa dks mRrjnk;h ugha ekurk gS vijkfèkd nkf;Ro dsoy mu ij gh vk;n gksrk gS tks vijk/k dkfjr gksrs le; dEiuh ds O;olk; dks pykus ds mRrjnk;h Fks vkSj mlds izHkkjh Fks & (iii) ,d iathdr vFkok daiuht ,DV 1956 ds rgr xfBr dEiuh ds fo#) lh/kh ftEesnkjh ml n'kk esa ekuh tkrh gS ek= ;fn okafNr foojf.k;k¡ ftu dk lanHkZ f'kdk;rh nkos vFkok ;kfpdk esa fd;k x;k gS] bl izdkj rS;kj dh xbZ gS ftuls vfHk;qDr dh lh/kh@iw.kZ ftEesnkjh vijk/k dkfjr gksus esa yxrh gks vkSj lkFk gh lkFk ;kfpdk esa ,sls rF; fn;s x;s gksa fd vfHk;qDr dEiuh ds O;olk; dk izHkkjh Fkk vkSj mlds bl fLFkfr esa gksus dh otg ls ml ij dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkuh visf{kr gS & (iv) lh/kk mRrjnkf;Ro ml O;fDr ij lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fl) gksuk pkfg, uk fd dYiuk ds vk/kkj ij & (v) ;fn vfHk;qDr izcU/k funs'kd gS vFkok la;qDr funs'kd rks nkos esa bl lEcU/k esa fooj.k fn;k tkuk vko';d gS vkSj mudh fLFkfr ds dkj.k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ds fy, os mRrjnk;h gSa & (vi) ;fn vfHk;qDr dEiuh dk funs'kd vFkok dksbZ vf/kdkjh gS ftlds }kjk dEiuh dh vksj ls pSdksa ij gLrk{kj fd;s x;s & rc ;g vko';d ugha gS fd f'kdk;rh nkos esa dksbZ n`<+ksfDr dh tk, & (7) ftl O;fDr dks mRrjnk;h Bgjk;k tk, og dEiuh ds O;olk; dk ml le; mRrjnk;h vkSj izHkkjh gksuk pkfg, & bl izdkj dh n`<+ksfDr nh tkuh pkfg, ih MCY;w fd ,sls ekeyksa esa fdlh funs'kd dh dkYifud ftEesnkjh ugha gksrhA ¼izLrj 14½
¼c½ ijkdE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881] /kkjk 138] 141¼1½ & dEiuh }kjk fd;k x;k vijk/k & vkSj ml ds okLrs lh/kk nkf;Ro & ,d funs'kd ftlus vijk/k dkfjr gksus ls iwoZ R;kxi= ns fn;k Fkk vkSj ftldk R;kxi= Lohdkj fd;k tk pqdk Fkk vkSj ftldk dEiuh ds O;olk; ls lEcU/k lekIr gks pqdk Fkk rks mls dEiuh }kjk dkfjr vijk/k ds okLrs lh/ks mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk vkSj ftldk dEiuh ds O;olk; ls funs'kd ds :i es ukrk VwV pqdk FkkA ¼izLrj 15 ls 18½
¼l½ n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 397] 401] 482 & /kkjk 482 lhvkj ih lh ds rgr mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkjksa dk foLrkj vkSj iqujh{k.k esa iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; dk tks fd iw.kZr;k izfrikfnr gS fd tc ,slh ;kfpdk dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq /kkjk 482 lhvkj ih lh ds vUrxZr varfuZfgr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx mPp U;k;ky; djs vFkok /kkjk 397 lhvkj ih lh ds rgr iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; djs rks vfHk;qDr ds cpko lk{; ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vFkok yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ tkap cSBkuk mPp U;k;ky; ds okLrs mfpr ugha gS & rFkkfi nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij fdlh mi;qDr dsl esa] tks fd lansg ds ?ksjs ds ckgj gks] tks vfHk;qDr }kjk nk;j fd;s x;s gks fd ml ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi fVdkÅ ugha gS & rks ;g dkuwu dk etkd gksxk ;fn vfHk;qDr ij U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k gksus ls mls viekfur fd;k tk jgk gks vkSj mlls vius fy, lQkbZ nsus ds fy, dgk tk, & ,sls ekeyksa esa U;k; ds fgr esa vkSj vU;k; dks jksdus ds okLrs vkSj U;k;ky; ds nq#i;ksx gksus ls cpkus gsrq mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ml lk{; dk voyksdu dj ldrh gS ftl esa izR;{k n`"Vr;k egRoiw.kZ rF; miyC/k gksaA
¼izLrj 20] 21 ,oa 22½
For the Appellant : Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad (for V.N. Raghupathy), Advs., with him.
For the Respondents: Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Mr. S.C. Patel, Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advs.
R.M. Lodha, J. — Leave granted.
2. These 18 appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common judgment and order dated September 6, 2007 passed by Calcutta High Court whereby 18 criminal revision applications filed by the appellant for quashing the proceedings initiated by the complainants in 18 complaint cases under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’) against him have been dismissed.
3. The brief facts are these. The complainants were interested in business relationship with Rifa Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘the Company’) for the sale of bio-ceramic products. The complainants, for the orders they had placed, issued demand drafts in favour of the Company. It appears that the Company had not delivered the products ordered by the complainants and accordingly they asked the Company for return of their money. On April 30, 2004, the Company issued 18 cheques bearing Nos. (i) 000843 for Rs. 30,000/-; (ii) 00870 for Rs. 40,000/-; (iii) 000845 for Rs. 30,000/-; (iv) 000852 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (v) 00842 for Rs. 60,000/-; (vi) 000862 for Rs. 40,000/-; (vii) 000834 for Rs. 60,000/-; (viii) 000572 for Rs. 40,000/-; (ix) 000827 for Rs. 30,350/-; (x) 000854 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (xi) 000826 for Rs. 60,000/-; (xii) 000855 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (xiii) 000857 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (xiv) 000858 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (xv) 000841 for Rs. 60,000/-; (xvi) 000871 for Rs. 40,000/-; (xvii) 000568 for Rs. 40,000/- and (xviii) for Rs. 60,130/- drawn on UTI Bank Ltd., Jayanagar, Bangalore in favour of the complainants. These 18 cheques were dishonoured by the Bank’s on presentation.
4. In the month of December, 2004, the complainants filed 18 complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall refer to the complaint no. 14512 of 2004. In the complaint, besides the Company, the appellant was arraigned as accused No. 3. It was alleged in the complaint that the Managing Director and the two Directors (including the appellant) were responsible for day-to-day affairs of the Company and that it was on their assurance that the complainant issued demand draft in favour of the Company and when the products of the Company were not received by the complainant, she contacted the accused persons and told them that she could not continue business with them and asked for return of her money. Accordingly, for and on behalf of the Company, in discharge of the existing liability, an account payee cheque was issued but the cheque was returned by the complainant’s banker on presentation with the endorsement ‘insufficient fund’. The complainant then sent legal notice asking the accused persons to pay the amount of cheque within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice but despite service of notice, no payment has been made.
5. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to all the accused persons including the appellant.
6. The appellant challenged the proceedings initiated by the complainants against him by filing 18 revision applications under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘Code’) before the Calcutta High Court. In these revision applications, notices were issued to the complainants. On behalf of the appellant, the principal contention canvassed was that the appellant was appointed as Director of the Company on August 27, 2003. He resigned from the directorship on March 2, 2004 which was accepted by the Board of Directors on that day itself with immediate effect. The factum of his resignation is also recorded in Form No. 32 filed by the Company with the Registrar of Companies on March 4, 2004. The 18 cheques which were issued on behalf of the Company to the complainants were issued after his resignation. The dishonour of these cheques through the complainants’ bankers’ was also subsequent to his resignation. In other words, it was submitted by the