THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1184 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal questioning the judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2007 in C.C.No.2097 of 2003, passed by the learned XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

3. The appellant is the complainant who filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the trial Court, aggrieved by the dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent, who is the Managing Director of M/s.HCL Agro Power Limited. The said Company issued two cheques for a total amount of Rs.5,33,534/-.

4. The Complaint was filed against the Managing Director namely K.Gopi Prasad. The company on whose behalf cheques were issued and signed by K.Gopi Prasad, is not made a party to the criminal proceeding before the trial Court.

5. Under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 any person including Managing Director who is responsible for managing day to day affairs of the company can be made as accused. The said person would be vicariously liable along with the company. Since the Company which has drawn the cheque though signed by the accused as Managing Director, herein was not made a party, the complaint was dismissed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Susela Padmavathy Amma V/s. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited and argued that the Managing Director or any Director can be made vicariously liable.

7. There is no dispute in the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Susela Padmavathy Amma’s case. However, by virtue of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the persons responsible on behalf of the Company can be made vicariously liable. Unless the company which is principal offender is made as accused, the question of making a person responsible in the Company vicariously liable including any Director or Managing Director does not arise. In the absence of company being made an accused, the complaint cannot sustain. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.10.2024 Sha/su