Outcome of Reference to Larger Bench:

• Due to difference of opinion between the two judges on whether prosecution under Section 138 is maintainable against the authorised signatory without arraying the company as an accused, the matter was referred to a three-judge Bench for resolution; the Registry was directed to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Note: The document records only the reference and does not contain the decision or proceedings of the three-judge Bench. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 52

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 838 of 2008

PETITIONER:

Aneeta Hada

RESPONDENT:

M/s Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/2008

BENCH:

S.B. SINHA & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2094 of 2007]

Aneeta Hada ...Appellant

Versus

M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2117 of 2007]

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is said to be an authorised signatory of M/s. Intel Travels

Ltd (Company). The said Company as also the respondent company had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 52

2

busi