1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 372 of 2012

Navin Kumar Sahay @ Navin Kishore Sahay son of Binay Bhushan

Sahay, resident of G-1, Damodar, Block No. 2, 4^th Phase, Alok Vihar,

Bhaluabasa, Town-Jamshedpur, P.O. + P.S. Sonari District- East

Singhbhum

…

…

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand …

…

… …

Respondent

2. M/s Eastern Travels Private Ltd. a company registered under the

companies Act, having its office at 2^nd Floor, Narbheram

Chambers, Main Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, represented

through its Sale Manager Mr. Anjani Nidhi, resident of Ashiana

Gardens, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Town-Jamshedpur, District – East

Singhbhum

…

…Opposite Parties

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate

Mr. Sarfaraz Akhtar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate

For the O.P. No. 2

: Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate

Through Video Conferencing

15/09.07.2021

1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Sarfaraz Akhtar,

Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the opposite party-State.

3. Heard Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

4. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order

dated 23.02.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, I,

Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 23/2010, whereby the

Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment dated 13.01.2010

passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1

Case No. 241/2004 convicting the petitioner for the offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

2

sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

year and to pay a sum of Rs. One Lakh to the complainant

company as compensation.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner while advancing

his argument, has submitted that though the dues was against

the company in which the petitioner was working, but the

cheque was issued by the petitioner from his personal account

and accordingly, there was no debt recoverable from the

petitioner in his personal capacity. It has been submitted that

in such circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner under

section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be

sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned senior counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “S.M.S.

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another”

reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89. The learned senior counsel

submits that there is a concept of vicarious liability when the

cheque is issued by the company, but merely because one of

the employees of the company has issued the cheque from his

personal account, he cannot be said to have issued the cheque

in discharge of the debt of the company.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and State

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.

2 has referred to para 5 and 6 of the complaint petition to

submit that the impugned judgment does not call for any

interference. He has further submitted that the cheque had

bounced twice. He has submitted that there is no illegality or

perversity in the impugned judgements and accordingly no

interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-

State while opposing the prayer also does not dispute the fact

that the company against whom the amount was due to the

3

complainant was never made accused in the present case, but

the petitioner had issued his personal cheque which had

bounced.

Findings of this court

7. The case was registered on the basis of complainant f