TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition was not maintainable because an earlier connected petition had been withdrawn. (ii) Whether the complaint and summoning order under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed for absence of specific averments showing the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, and whether rejection of the application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the petition was not maintainable because an earlier connected petition had been withdrawn.
Analysis: The earlier petition had been withdrawn, but the present proceeding was already pending when that withdrawal took place. The reliefs in the two matters were also not identical. The rule against a fresh challenge after withdrawal without liberty was therefore held inapplicable on these facts.
Conclusion: The petition was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and summoning order under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed for absence of specific averments showing the petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, and whether rejection of the application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sustainable.
Analysis: For vicarious liability under Section 141, a complaint must contain specific averments that the person sought to be prosecuted was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. Mere status as a partner or general allegations are insufficient. The proceedings under Section 138 are triable summarily under Section 143, so Section 245(2) does not apply. On the complaint as framed, the necessary statutory averments were absent against the petitioners.
Conclusion: The complaint and summoning order were unsustainable against the petitioners, and the rejection of the Section 245(2) application was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded for the petitioners, with the criminal complaint and summoning order set aside only to the extent of their involvement, while the proceedings continued against the remaining accused.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint seeking vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time; in a Section 138 summary trial, Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
