TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Strict Interpretation of Criminal Liability in Section 138 Cases: Liability Not Imposed on Indirect Parties</h1> <h3>PJ Agro Tech. Ltd. Versus Water Base Ltd.</h3> The Supreme Court analyzed the maintainability of a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against individuals not directly ... Whether a complaint under section 138 of the 1881 Act would be maintainable against a person who was not the drawer of the cheque from an account maintained by him, which ultimately came to be dishonoured on presentation? Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the instant case, the cheque which had been dishonoured may have been issued by the respondent No. 11 for discharging the dues of the appellant No. 1-company and its directors to the respondent No. 1 company and the respondent. Company may have a good case against the appellant No. 1-company for recovery of its dues before other fora, but it would not be sufficient to attract the provisions of section 138 of the 1881 Act. The appellant-company and its directors cannot be made liable under section 138 of the 1881 Act for a default committed by the respondent No. 11. Issues:- Maintainability of a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a person not the drawer of the cheque from an account maintained by him.Analysis:The case involved an agro-based company and its directors who were approached by another company for distributing prawn feed. After discontinuing dealings, the appellant settled all dues and authorized the other company to collect outstanding amounts directly from customers. Subsequently, a cheque issued by a former general manager of the appellant was dishonored, leading to a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the complaint, holding that the appellants could be prosecuted under section 138. The central issue was whether a complaint under section 138 would be maintainable against a person not the drawer of the cheque from an account maintained by him.The provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were examined, emphasizing that for the section to apply, a dishonored cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the person with the banker for payment to another person to discharge a debt or liability. It was clarified that the appellant company and its directors could not be held liable under section 138 for a default committed by the former general manager. The court highlighted that criminal or quasi-criminal provisions must be strictly construed, and proceedings are in personam, not to impose an offense on an unrelated party. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the complaint against the appellants and pro forma-respondents was quashed.In conclusion, the Supreme Court analyzed the legal aspects of maintaining a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against individuals not directly involved in issuing a dishonored cheque from their account. The judgment clarified that strict interpretation of criminal provisions is necessary, and liability cannot be imposed on parties not directly responsible for the offense. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and quashing the complaint against the appellants and other related parties.
TaxTMI 
