IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.11.2016

(Orders Reserved on : 19.07.2016)

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

Crl.R.C.No.774 of 2016

and

Crl.M.P.No.5809 of 2016

N.Harihara Krishnan

... Petitioner/Respondent/Accused

Vs.

J.Thomas

... Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order made on

21.04.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.6771 of 2015 in C.C.No.2925 of 2012 on

the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-Fast Track Court No.IV,

George Town, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.R.Shnkaralingam

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Namo Narayanan

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order

dated 21.04.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.6771

of 2015 in C.C.No.2925 of 2012.

2. In this case, the respondent herein/complainant had

initiated a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned VII Metropolitan

Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in C.C.No.2925 of 2012 against

the petitioner. The cheque in question was issued by the

Company and statutory notice was also issued to the Company and

the above complaint has been filed as against individual without

arraying the Company as a party to the complaint. Hence, at the

time of trial, without giving any reason, the complainant has

filed a petition to implead the Company as a party and the said

petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 21.04.2016.

As against the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case is

preferred by the revision petitioner/accused before this Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

contended that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact

that no reason has been assigned in the petition filed to

implead the drawer of the cheque that too after three years from

the date of filing the complaint. It is further contended that

the trial Court, without following the dictum laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, allowed the petition filed for impleading.

Since the trial Court is erred in allowing the impleading

petition which was filed after three years from the date of

filing the complaint, the learned counsel prayed that the order

of the trial Court has to be set aside and the Criminal Revision

case has to be allowed.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for

the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Gujaraj High

Court in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.4536 of 2015

(Oanali Ismailji Sadikot Vs. State of Gujarat). The learned

counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(5) SCC page 661 (Aneeta Hada

Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited), wherein, at

paragraph Nos.58 and 59, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as

follows:-

"58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction,

we are of the considered opinion that commission of

offence by the company is an express condition

precedent to attract the vicarious liability of

others. Thus, the words “as well as the company”

appearing in the section make it absolutely

unmistakably clear that when the company can be

prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the

other categories could be vicariously liable for the

offence subject to the averments in the petition and

proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact

that the company is a juristic person and it has its

own respectability. If a finding is recorded against

it, it would create a concavity in its reputation.

There can be situations when the corporate reputation

is affected when a Director is indicted.

59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at

the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the

prosecution under S