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>Managing Partner found guilty for dishonored cheque; liable under Section 138 N.I. Act</h1> <h3>N. Radhakrishnan Versus A.C. Thomas and Ors.</h3> The court upheld the guilty verdict and conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for the Managing Partner of a firm who issued a dishonored cheque. ... - Issues:1. Whether an account maintained in the name of a firm can be considered as an account maintained by its Managing Partner and if the Managing Partner who issued the cheque can be considered as the drawer of the cheque.Analysis:The case involved a revision petition against the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused, as the Managing Partner of a firm, issued a cheque for Rs. 90,000 which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed the amount and issued the cheque to discharge the liability. The accused claimed he issued the cheque on behalf of the firm to another person and that the liability was already settled. The courts below found the accused guilty, leading to the appeal.The main contention raised was whether the petitioner, as the Managing Partner, could be held liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without the firm being prosecuted. The petitioner argued that since there was no allegation or proof that the firm committed an offense, the prosecution against him was not maintainable. However, the court held that the petitioner, as a partner in the firm, was the drawer of the cheque, and the firm's liability under Section 138 could not be disputed. The court emphasized that the petitioner's role as a Managing Partner made him competent to act on behalf of the firm, even without a specific averment in the complaint.Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of the firm's liability and clarified that even if the firm had no personal liability to the complainant, issuing a cheque to discharge any debt or liability falls under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court concluded that the firm had indeed committed an offense under Section 138.Regarding the sentence, the court modified and reduced the imprisonment term, considering the delay in settling the matter and the complainant's long wait for payment. The court imposed a lenient sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, along with a compensation amount and default sentence. If the petitioner failed to appear before the Magistrate, necessary steps for execution of the sentence were directed to be taken.In conclusion, the revision petition was partially allowed, upholding the guilty verdict and conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but modifying the sentence and reducing the imprisonment term while imposing a compensation amount.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
