Company held liable in prosecution under Section 138 NI Act despite directors not prosecuted; Director not personally liable.

The court confirmed the maintainability of the prosecution against the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding the company liable despite the non-prosecution of its directors. The Director was found not personally liable due to the lack of specific allegations against him. The court emphasized that a company can be prosecuted independently of its directors. The trial court's decision to dismiss the discharge application was upheld, with the court finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial. The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the Sessions Court's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the complaint against the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Personal liability of the Director for the dishonoured cheques.
3. Legal requirements for prosecuting a company and its directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Validity of the discharge application filed by the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Complaint Against the Company:
The primary issue was whether the respondent-company could be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for issuing dishonoured cheques. The court noted that the cheques were issued by the company and were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant had issued a legal notice demanding payment, which the company failed to comply with, leading to the prosecution.

The court referenced Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which states that if an offence is committed by a company, both the company and the person in charge of its business at the time of the offence shall be deemed guilty. The court concluded that the company is liable for prosecution despite the non-prosecution of its directors, emphasizing that the company itself can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138.

2. Personal Liability of the Director:
The revision petitioner argued that the Director, Sri Rahul Kejriwal, should not be personally liable as there were no specific allegations that he was responsible for the day-to-day business of the company. The court acknowledged that the Director was not individually impleaded as an accused and that the complaint did not contain specific allegations against him personally. Therefore, the Director could not be held personally liable under Section 141 of the Act.

3. Legal Requirements for Prosecuting a Company and Its Directors:
The court examined the legal requirements under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which necessitates that the person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence must be prosecuted alongside the company. The court reviewed several judgments, including *K.P.J. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd.*, *Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.*, and *Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat*. These cases established that specific allegations must be made against individuals to hold them liable.

However, the court differentiated these cases from the present one, noting that the prosecution was against the company itself and not against the Director in his personal capacity. The court cited judgments like *Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P.* and *State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal*, which held that a company can be prosecuted independently of its directors.

4. Validity of the Discharge Application:
The accused filed an application for discharge under Sections 239 and 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.), which the trial court dismissed. The revision petitioner argued that the application itself was not maintainable under law as the offence under Section 138 is a summons case, and the procedure prescribed under Chapter XX of the Cr. P.C. does not contemplate a stage of discharge. The court referenced *Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra*, which clarified that in summons cases, the trial must follow the procedure to its logical conclusion without a discharge stage.

The court concluded that the trial court correctly found sufficient material to proceed with the trial and that the Sessions Court erred in setting aside the Magistrate's order.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was allowed, and the order of the Sessions Court was set aside. The court confirmed the order of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that the prosecution against the company was maintainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the Director was not personally liable in the absence of specific allegations.

---