The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of arraigning the company as an accused for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the NI Act, and the requirement of specific averments in the complaint to establish the liability of individuals under Section 141.

ORDER

1. This Order shall also govern disposal of CRR No.706 of 2009 preferred by Rakesh Kumar Tyagi (hereinafter referred to as ''complainant'') u/S 397/401 of CrPC for enhancement of sentence awarded to Raghvendra Singh Tomar (hereinafter referred to as ''accused'') whereby the Court of JMFC, Jaura, District Morena in Criminal Case No.135 of 2007 vide judgment dated 27-08-2008 convicted accused for offence u/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [ in short '' the NI Act''] and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.6 lac which has been affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jaura, District Morena in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2008 vide judgment dated 29-06-2009 maintaining the conviction of accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentenced him to remain under custody till rising of Court with fine of Rs.6 lac out of which Rs.5,75,000/- was directed to be given to complainant.

2. Similarly, CRR No.598 of 2009 has been preferred preferred by accused under Section 397/401 of CrPC challenging the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court as well as affirmed by lower appellate Court for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Since facts of both revisions are identical in nature, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are heard simultaneously.

3. Necessary facts for disposal of present revisions, in short, are that complainant issued a notice through his Counsel to accused as well as M/s Hakim Singh Builders & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''Company'') stating therein that since accused is the Director of the said Company and is engaged in the business of construction, therefore, he is wholly responsible for the conduct of affairs of Company. On behalf of Company, he had executed an oral contract at Guna in regard to construction of work to be carried out under Pradhan Mantri Sadak Yojana and for that purpose, complainant was appointed as petty contractor. After completion of work by complainant, accused had issued a cheque dated 21-07-2006 on behalf of the Company and by putting signature, has given to complainant. When the said cheque bearing no.457451 amount of Rs.4 lac was deposited in the concerned Bank, the same was dishonoured. After expiry of period of 15 days, thereafter complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of JMFC Jaura, District Morena. After giving notice, the accused denied the allegation inter alia contending that complainant never worked as a petty contractor either under him or the Company and there was not at all any oral contract with the complainant in regard to construction of work at Guna. In his defence, accused produced documents D1 to D3 stating therein that the alleged cheque was never issued for discharge of any debt or any liability towards complainant. On the basis of averments made in complaint and defence taken by accused as well as documents available therein, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 6 lac vide judgment dated 27-08-2008. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before lower appellate Court and lower Appellate Court confirming the conviction of accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentenced him to remain under custody till rising of Court with fine of Rs.6 lac out of which Rs.5,75,000/- was directed to be given to complainant. Being dissatisfied, the present revisions have been filed at the instance of accused and complainant.

4. Shri Lahoti, the learned counsel for accused submits that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are contrary to the evidence available on record and contrary to the settled proposition of law regarding discharge of debt and liability. It is further contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 141 of NI Act have been violated. The instant complaint was preferred only against accused wi